Upload File

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only (write operation) and open-world hint (possible side effects), which are consistent with uploading. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond these annotations, but does not contradict them. The transparency is adequate but could benefit from mentioning any side effects or constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the main purpose. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words. However, the brevity sacrifices crucial details that could improve agent performance.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what happens after upload (e.g., returns file ID, status). It also misses information like file size limits, accepted content types, or whether overwrites occur. For a tool with 3 parameters and moderate complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, when coverage is high (>80%), a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'Upload a file to Lexware,' which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'lexware_upload_voucher_file,' which also uploads files but seems voucher-specific. Without differentiation, the agent may be uncertain which upload tool to use.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lexware_upload_voucher_file' or other tools. The description provides no context about prerequisites, limitations, or ideal use cases.

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