eda_sch_manufacture_data_upload_bom_template_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and return type, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., file format, required permissions), or what happens if the template already exists. The optional 'template' parameter's role is also unexplained.

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 brief and to the point, containing no filler. It is front-loaded with the signature and return value. However, the lack of any usage or parameter context means it could be slightly improved without losing conciseness.

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 simple upload tool, the description provides the core action and return value, but it omits details about the optional template argument and any error conditions. Given the sibling tools, it is minimally adequate but not fully self-contained for an agent to use confidently without additional context.

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?

The description provides a signature with parameter names and types but not their semantics beyond that. The 'template' parameter is optional and its purpose is unclear. The input schema only defines a generic 'args' array without individual parameter descriptions, so this is a genuine gap.

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 clearly states the action (upload) and the resource (BOM template file), and specifies the return value (BOM template name). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_bom_templates or delete_bom_template by its focus on uploading.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for adding a new template, nor does it reference related operations to distinguish them. The agent must infer usage from the function name alone.

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