file_uploads

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

Annotations are minimal (all hints false), placing the burden on the description to disclose behavior. The description outlines the upload workflow and size limits, but does not detail aspects like permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens on failure.

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 concise and structured with a header and bullet-like action list. It front-loads the core purpose and uses minimal text, though it could be slightly more organized.

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 complexity (9 params, 1 required), the description covers all necessary aspects: the sequence of actions, required vs optional params, size limits, and encoding. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters per action (e.g., 'create (filename -> content_type, mode)') and noting that file_content must be base64-encoded and that multi-part requires number_of_parts.

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 'Upload files to Notion' and lists specific actions (create, send, complete, retrieve, list), making the purpose unambiguous. Among sibling tools like 'blocks' or 'pages', none handle file uploads, so it is well-distinguished.

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?

The description provides clear context by mapping actions to required and optional parameters, and mentions the size limit (20MB direct vs multi-part for larger files). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives.

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