upload_gpx_to_komoot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the side effect of creating a new tour, but says nothing about required credentials, permission needs, rate limits, duplicate-name handling, or failure behavior. Significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact per-argument breakdown. The 'Args:' block is slightly mechanical but every line earns its place by documenting an otherwise undescribed parameter.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are covered. However, for a mutating upload tool with no annotations, the missing authentication/prerequisite and error-handling context leaves the definition only minimally sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines gpx_path as the file to upload, name as the tour name, and sport with concrete common values (touringbicycle, mtb, racebike). Only the default value and full acceptance set of sport remain undocumented.

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, resource and outcome: uploading a GPX file as a new planned tour on Komoot. This is clearly distinguishable from the download_tour_gpx sibling by the verb alone, though the description never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling. Clear but no explicit differentiation.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The presence of setup_credentials as a sibling suggests an authentication precondition that the description never mentions. Usage must be fully inferred from the name.

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