Upload Knowledge Document (Legacy)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing asynchronous indexing behavior, the 50MB per-file limit, and the exact error conditions (401/403/413/422). It also clarifies the legacy user-auth context and ownership requirement, which annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Dense but every clause carries operational value: scope, async behavior, file limits, prerequisites, auth, error codes, and the sibling alternative. The most important call-blocking constraints are front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 tool with no output schema and meaningful complexity, the description covers the required inputs, prerequisites, auth, error cases, async behavior, and the legacy-vs-v2 distinction. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents `appId`, `files`, `name`, `mimeType`, and `base64` thoroughly. The description mostly restates schema facts (1–5 files, base64, 50MB max) and adds only minor context like 'PDF, text, etc.' It does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 names the exact action ('Upload documents into an app's RAG sources'), the resource, and the route ('legacy user-auth route'). It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling `ethora-sources-docs-upload-v2`, making its scope immediately clear.

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 states prerequisites (selected app via `ethora-app-select` or explicit `appId`), auth requirements (user-auth mode, active session, app ownership), and explicitly routes app-token/B2B flows to the v2 sibling. This gives an agent concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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