Upload document

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

Annotations only cover read/write and open-world hints; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them, including quota consumption and the fact that unrecognized keys silently create custom documents. It also flags that filePath reads from the server's machine, a security-relevant detail. It omits any mention of the write-confirmation flow implied by the confirm parameter.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler, and the alternative-tool routing is front-loaded right after the core action. Slightly information-heavy but every sentence carries operational value.

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?

With no output schema and only 2 required parameters, the description supplies the sourcing constraints, slot semantics, and quota behavior an agent needs. The remaining gap is the confirm/approval workflow, which is left entirely to the schema field.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates well: it specifies the exactly-one-of constraint among filePath, url, and base64+fileName, and explains the key slot semantics via list_property_fields with concrete examples and custom-key fallback. It does not clarify confirm, entityType, or mimeType, leaving some gap.

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 (Upload) and resource (a file/document) with its linking target (property or tenant). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling attach_transaction_receipt, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Names an explicit alternative (attach_transaction_receipt) and the condition that selects it (attaching to a bank transaction/payment). It gives clear positive context but does not address other plausible siblings like link_document or send_document, so routing guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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