calypso-upload-knowledge-file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the durable bucket-backed nature, the indexing pipeline, return metadata, the requirement to choose exactly one file source, and explains how filePath avoids base64 conversion. It also mentions idempotency for retries. Some aspects like error conditions or permission needs are not covered, but the description adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently covers usage guidance, parameter selection, and constraints in a compact block. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, when to use each source parameter, bucket requirements, and optional behaviors like waitForIndexing and createMissingBuckets. It addresses the complexity effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the trade-offs between filePath and contentBase64, clarifies the bucket alternatives (bucketIds, bucketSlugs, bucket), and notes the idempotency key's purpose. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Uploads a file into the durable bucket-backed knowledge store and indexing pipeline', which is a specific verb+resource action. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting this is for the broader knowledge corpus rather than a single RAG chat turn, and indirectly from the batch upload tool.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when you want a file indexed into the broader knowledge corpus instead of attached directly to a single RAG chat turn.' It also details when to use filePath vs contentBase64 with concrete examples (local vs hosted/remote), and implies batch tool for multiple files. No alternatives are excluded but the context is clear.

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