Urcă un document PDF

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses size limits for both modes, the security behavior of refusing internal addresses, magic-byte content verification ('conținutul se verifică, nu numele'), and full replacement semantics: inlocuieste=true is required to overwrite, the address stays stable, and the old version is retained. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Five dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return value before moving to modes, validation, and replacement rules. Each sentence carries distinct information; the example link is slightly redundant but pedagogically useful.

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?

For a 4-param tool with two mutually exclusive modes, validation rules, and versioning semantics, the description covers the essential decisions: mode selection, naming behavior, replacement, and return format. Minor gaps: the exact failure/error behavior on invalid PDFs is not described, and the output format is informally given rather than structured.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: the either/or exclusivity between url and continut_base64, the differing size ceilings, and the consequence of inlocuieste=true (old version kept). This meaningfully compensates wherever the schema is terse.

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 and resource ('Urcă un document PDF') and states the concrete return value (the /fisiere/<nume>.pdf address for embedding in links). The PDF-only constraint and max size scope clearly distinguish it from sibling upload tools like urca_imagine.

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 gives explicit routing guidance between the two upload modes: url for public PDFs up to 25 MB (server fetches it) and continut_base64 for files up to ~6 MB, plus a warning that internal addresses are refused. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., when to prefer urca_imagine), but the PDF-only constraint implies the exclusion boundary.

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