upload_document

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

No annotations are given, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Upload a document' without disclosing whether documents can be overwritten, what happens on success (e.g., returns document ID), or required permissions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects.

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 only one sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It does not waste words, but it fails to provide essential details, making it less effective.

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 the low schema coverage, lack of output schema, and two required parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It omits critical context like file size limits, overwrite behavior, and return value, leaving the agent uncertain about usage.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter ('workspace' or 'filePath'). The agent has no clue about expected formats, such as file path syntax or workspace identifier type.

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 states the verb ('Upload') and resource ('document to a workspace'), making the basic action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspace_documents' or 'create_workspace', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_workspace_documents' for reading). There is no mention of prerequisites like workspace existence or file constraints.

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