doc_put

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reveal key traits: the write action, immutability, SHA-256 output, and deterministic hashing. However, it does not disclose parameter interaction (e.g., content vs content_base64), behavior on duplicate content, permissions, or failure modes.

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 short sentences with no filler; the primary action and key property are front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core behavior.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters but zero parameter documentation, and the description does not explain how to invoke it correctly, such as how to supply the blob or what mime and agent_id do. The output schema may describe the return value, but the input side is incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 adds no meaning to mime, content, agent_id, or content_base64. An agent cannot determine which parameter to populate or whether content and content_base64 are alternatives from the text.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it stores an immutable blob and returns its SHA-256 hash. The content-addressable property (same content -> same hash) clearly distinguishes it from mutable document tools like doc_update/doc_create and from ftp_put.

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 implies a use case for content-addressed immutable blobs but never states when to prefer doc_put over siblings such as doc_create, doc_update, or ftp_put. There are no exclusions or conditions, so an agent has to infer selection from the tool name and vague semantics.

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