upload_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the 10 MB API-enforced limit, CSV-only restriction, authoritative warnings field, required media column naming conventions, zero-fill requirement for inactive periods, and the local-only availability of csv_path. This goes well beyond a minimal disclosure.

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 long but every block earns its place: a one-sentence summary, a clarity rule, structured constraints, and a compact Args section. Important caveats are front-loaded and highlighted with 'IMPORTANT', so an agent can quickly identify critical requirements.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent what the tool returns (uploaded file ID needed for create_model, row/column counts, validation warnings) and points to get_data_schema for the canonical input format. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most environments.

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 descriptions cover 0% of the parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains csv_content as raw CSV text, csv_path as a server-readable file path, name's default behavior from the file stem, and filename's purpose as a recorded original filename. It also adds the exclusivity constraint between csv_content and csv_path.

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 a specific verb ('Upload'), a resource ('CSV dataset to Simba'), and its purpose ('for use in model building'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_uploads, get_upload, and create_model by focusing on the ingestion step.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: provide exactly one of csv_content or csv_path, prefer csv_path for large data, and check get_data_schema for row minimums. It also specifies when csv_path is unavailable (HTTP/SSE deployments), making the selection context clear.

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