upload_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions content format handling (text vs. base64) but omits critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it overwrites existing files, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that directly address the core functionality and content handling. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic functionality but lacks critical context about authentication requirements, error handling, return values, and differentiation from sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by clarifying the 'content' parameter's dual format (text vs. base64) and implying the relationship with 'is_base64', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 the action ('Upload a new document') and target resource ('to SharePoint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'upload_document_from_path' beyond the content handling distinction, which is more about implementation than purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upload_document_from_path' or 'update_document'. It mentions content format handling but doesn't address context-specific selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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