Upload new document version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it is a write operation, it is non-destructive to prior data ('previous versions stay in the history'), and it uses a two-step preview/confirm flow. It still omits auth/permission requirements and failure behavior, but the mutation semantics are well covered.

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 tight sentences, no padding, with the core action front-loaded and the write-workflow caveat following immediately. Every clause 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?

For a 4-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential action, mutation nature, and preview/confirm protocol. It is close to complete, with only permission/error-handling context missing.

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 75%, so most parameters (document_id, file_path, name) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no format or path syntax detail. The preview/confirm mention loosely maps to the confirm parameter but does not clarify the boolean-vs-string (token) duality.

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 ('Uploads a local file as a new version of an existing document in Clio') and adds the scope qualifier '(previous versions stay in the history)'. The phrase 'new version of an existing document' cleanly separates it from the sibling clio_document_upload, which creates a new document.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: 'preview first, then confirm with the token from the preview', which tells the agent how to sequence calls. It does not compare itself against siblings like clio_document_upload or clio_document_write, and the 'token from the preview' wording is not fully reconciled with the schema's confirm=true boolean, leaving a small ambiguity.

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