therapyportal_upload_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the write/destructive profile is known; the description still adds real value by disclosing irreversibility ('no delete or undo through this server'), the confirmation/preview + confirmToken protocol, and a prompt-injection warning about tool-result text. It does not describe the success response shape, but no output schema exists and the confirmation-phase behavior is the more important gap it does cover.

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?

Front-loaded with what is uploaded and where, then the id sources, then safety constraints — good ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense and the final confirmation sentence is long and slightly run-on, which costs a point against a perfect score.

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?

For a destructive, open-world write with no output schema, the description covers preconditions (where the ids come from), refusal cases, irreversibility, and the full two-path confirmation flow. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to handle both confirmation modes.

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 baseline would be 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the either/or relationship between portal_document_id and library_document_id and their provenance, plus the purpose of confirmToken (two-step fallback, never on first call, ignored under elicitation). It does not restate file_path/patient_id constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload a local file... to TherapyPortal') plus scope: accepted MIME types, 25 MB cap, and the two possible targets (a PENDING document request or an upload-required library form). It also names the sibling tools that supply each id, so an agent can distinguish it from download/list tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: get portal_document_id from therapyportal_list_documents, library_document_id from therapyportal_list_forms, and states two exclusions ('Refuses anything that needs a signature, and does not fill in forms'). It also states the gating condition — only when the user asked and approved the preview.

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