convert_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: cost (100 sats), payment requirement (valid paid payment ID), file input options (base64 vs URL with size guidance), and format support scope (200+ formats). It doesn't cover rate limits, error handling, or processing time.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose statement, format support examples, and practical usage guidance. Every sentence adds value - no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering cost, payment requirements, input options, and format scope. However, it doesn't describe the output (converted file format/return method) or error conditions, leaving some gaps for a paid conversion service.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the 'prefer fileUrl for files >5MB' guidance for fileBase64/fileUrl parameters and mentioning the 200+ format support context for extensionFrom/extensionTo, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what's in 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 the tool's purpose with specific verb ('convert') and resource ('file'), plus it distinguishes from siblings by specifying format conversion capabilities. It lists supported format categories (documents, images, audio, video) which differentiates it from other tools like analyze_image or transcribe_audio.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (file format conversion) and includes practical guidance about preferring fileUrl for large files (>5MB). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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