workiva_create_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only the immediate action ('create') and parameter list, but omits any side effects, permissions required, behavior on naming conflicts, whether it returns an ID, or any other operational context. This is below the level needed for a mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement and a structured Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 creation tool with no annotations and a relatively simple schema, the description lacks context around when to use it, how it fits into a workflow, and important caveats. While an output schema exists (so return values may be covered there), the missing usage guidance and behavioral details leave the description incomplete.

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?

The description adds some meaning beyond the schema by clarifying 'kind' values and defining 'container' as 'Parent folder ID (optional)'. However, it does not elaborate on required formats, default behavior, or how to obtain the container ID, and with 0% schema description coverage, it only partially compensates.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new file or folder in Workiva.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, delete, or update files, and the scope (file/folder) is explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workiva_import_file or workiva_create_document_section. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or situational context—only the basic action statement.

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