Subir documento PDF

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool creates a document, requires write scope, returns the created document, and returns an error 409 if a duplicate exists, plus the force flag to override. This covers key behavioral traits, though it omits details like size limits or storage permanence.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, and the second addresses error handling and a parameter. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose, return value (created document), and error handling. It does not detail the response structure, but for a create tool, this is sufficient. It could mention more about the required scope, but that is already stated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes each parameter. The description adds only a restatement of the force parameter's purpose ('usá force=true para subir igual'), which is redundant with the schema. The description does not explain other parameters beyond what the schema provides, thus adding minimal value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Sube un PDF a Zyta.' This directly states the action (upload) and the object (PDF) to the system (Zyta). It also mentions what it returns and an error condition, distinguishing it from siblings like kairo_upload_documents (plural) or kairo_download_document.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states a prerequisite ('Requiere scope 'write'') and gives guidance on handling duplicates ('usá force=true para subir igual'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the error information helps the agent know when to use the force parameter. This provides clear context for usage without excluding alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.