Upload new document (existing file)

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the write nature and a preview/confirm workflow, but the instruction 'preview first, then confirm with the token' slightly conflicts with the schema's statement that confirm=true can be used directly when the request is complete. It also omits permission requirements and error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place by covering the default folder, the sibling tool to use for letterheads, and the write/confirm workflow. No filler.

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 a write tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow and default folder behavior. It still leaves permission requirements and failure-mode context unstated.

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 67%, and the description adds meaningful detail for folder_id beyond the schema: the 'Claude' folder is created if it does not exist. However, it does not explain the name or document_category_id parameters.

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 'Uploads' and resource 'local file as a new document into a matter'. It differentiates itself from clio_document_create_from_letterhead by explicitly directing that use case elsewhere.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool for letters/filings, explains the default folder behavior when folder_id is omitted, and describes the preview/confirm flow. Nothing is left to inference.

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