Create File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful constraints (50MB max, two mutually exclusive input methods), but does not describe the return value, error behavior, or any side effects beyond attaching the file. For an upload tool, this is partial transparency—enough to use it, but not to anticipate responses or failures.

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 5 sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the purpose, uses a numbered list for the two input methods, and presents requirements and limits compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the essential operational context: purpose, input methods, required fields, and size limit. It does not describe the response format, but given the simplicity of an upload and the parameter focus, the description is largely sufficient. A mention of return value would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that file_base64 and file_path are alternative input methods and that one of them is required along with contact_id. It also notes the 50MB size limit, which is not in the schema. This elevates the parameter understanding beyond raw field names.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Upload a file and attach it to a contact in Less Annoying CRM.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_file or get_files_attached_to_contact, which are read-oriented, and from create_note or create_email which attach other entity types. The purpose is unambiguous and scoped.

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 usage context by specifying two input methods (file_base64 and file_path), required fields, and a size limit. It implies this tool is for uploading a file to a contact, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is actionable, just not exhaustive with exclusions.

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