upload_bom

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 the write nature, the need for polling via a returned token, and permission requirements for auto_create. It does not cover rate limits, idempotency, or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are well communicated.

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 detailed but well-organized, with a warning symbol, paragraph explaining the endpoint and polling, and a clear bullet-like list of parameters. It could be slightly more concise but avoids fluff and front-loads key information.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers usage, parameter meanings, return behavior (token), and post-processing polling. Missing details like token format or error conditions, but overall adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke 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 0%, meaning the schema only provides types. The description adds rich semantics: explains project_name/version as target, bom as base64-encoded SBOM, auto_create behavior and permission, and optional parent parameters for hierarchy. This fully compensates for the lack of 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 it uploads a CycloneDX/SPDX SBOM to Dependency-Track, specifies it is a write operation, and distinguishes from sibling tools (none of which are upload tools). The verb 'upload' and resource 'SBOM' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use (uploading SBOMs), mentions that the caller should poll for completion, and notes auto_create triggers project creation with extra permission requirements. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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