upload_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the upload uses POST /v1/files (multipart) and that the backend fetches the file bytes from a public URL. However, it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects like overwriting existing files.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value: the first states the operation and endpoint, the second explains key parameters. It is well-structured and 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?

Given the tool complexity (3 params, one nested object, output schema exists), the description covers the operation mechanics, parameter constraints, and linkage to CRM entities. It lacks mention of success/error responses, but the output schema likely handles that. Overall, it is fairly complete, though a note on idempotency would improve it.

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 low (33%), so the description must compensate. It adds crucial meaning: file_url must be publicly reachable, folder is the destination with a default of 'Uploads', and related_to anchors to a CRM entity. This goes beyond the plain schema types and provides operational context.

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 operation ('Upload a file') and the target system ('Recruit CRM'), distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on CRM entities like candidates, companies, and jobs. The verb and resource are 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 explains that file_url must be publicly reachable and that related_to anchors to a CRM entity, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but no exclusions or explicit when-to-use guidance is provided.

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