Docflow Add Category Samples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the API action (POST), implies a mutation (upload), and states a hard limit (max 10). However, it does not mention side effects like whether samples are appended or replaced, whether the operation is reversible, or any preconditions. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The main action and purpose are front-loaded, and the second sentence gives actionable guidance. The endpoint in parentheses is a useful reference, not filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers the core purpose and a key limit, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Missing context includes the meaning of sample_file_paths, any interaction with existing samples, and conditions for successful upload. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have filled more gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only refers generically to 'sample files' without explaining sample_file_paths semantics (paths? URLs? local vs remote?). The parameter names are self-descriptive, yet the description adds no detail about the array format, file requirements, or constraints beyond max 10. This is below the minimum viable baseline.

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 and resource ('Add sample files to a category') plus the purpose ('improve classification accuracy'). The endpoint reference further disambiguates from sibling operations like docflow_add_category_table or docflow_add_category_fields. An agent can easily tell what this tool does.

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?

Provides concrete context on when and how many to add ('3–5 recommended, max 10 total'), which is useful for effective use. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling names make the distinction obvious. The quantity guidance earns this above a 3.

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