Receipts Upload Receipt

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

Annotations already indicate not readonly and not destructive; the description adds 'This may create or update Monarch data' which gives a vague behavioral hint. However, it omits critical details like file size limits, accepted formats, or exactly what data is created/updated.

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 very short (2 sentences), which is concise but misses essential details. It is front-loaded but at the cost of completeness.

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 6 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns or its side effects beyond a vague 'create or update' statement.

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?

Only 2 of 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (fields, output_mode); the description does not clarify the purpose of file_path, filename, content_type, or session_path. With 33% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 states 'Upload receipt' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by implying a creation/update action, but lacks specifics on what the upload entails (e.g., attachment to a transaction).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like receipts_match_receipt or receipts_update_receipt. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.

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