upload_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation but never says that an item is created on a board, that the caller must supply placement coordinates, what happens on failure or size overflow, or how the created item is identified — even though an output schema exists, the absence of any behavioral context for a mutation is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the format and size constraints immediately after the action; no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but it is structurally clean.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the required placement parameters and the parent-linking behavior undocumented. An agent could not reliably call this without experimenting or inspecting error messages.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description only hints at file_path by saying 'from the local disk.' The required board_id, x, y (board placement) and optional parent_frame_id, title are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess at coordinate semantics.

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 ('Upload') and resource ('a document file') and enumerates the accepted formats and size cap, which distinguishes it from upload_image and create_document_from_url by input source. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling create_doc, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 statement of when to use this versus create_doc (inline document creation) or create_document_from_url (remote source). No prerequisites, no mention that the file must exist on the agent's local disk beyond the parenthetical phrase 'from the local disk'.

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