Publish File to Prismism

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that links are 'tracked' and 'shareable', indicating monitoring and accessibility traits. However, it omits critical operational details like file size limits, retention policies, idempotency behavior, or rate limits.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the action and supported formats; second sentence handles encoding guidance. Every word 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately indicates the return value ('get a shareable... link'). With 100% parameter coverage in schema, the description appropriately focuses on format support and encoding. Minor gap: missing operational constraints like file size limits.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing supported file formats (PDF, HTML, Markdown, etc.) and explaining the binary vs text encoding decision logic, which aids parameter selection beyond raw schema definitions.

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?

Description states specific verb ('Upload') + resource ('file') + outcome ('shareable, tracked link'). The action clearly distinguishes it from siblings like prismism_get, prismism_update, and prismism_delete.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use base64 vs plain text encoding for binary files. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from prismism_update (for existing files) or mention prerequisites like authentication.

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