Create file upload session

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

The openWorldHint annotation already signals a non-read-only operation, but the description adds value by specifying that the tool returns upload URLs and a session token, and supports both new files and new versions. It does not contradict the annotation and provides useful behavioral context beyond the generic hint, though it omits details like session expiration or the need to use the URLs with upload_part.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. Every phrase contributes meaning: the action, the modes, and the return value.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential action and return value, but it is incomplete for a multi-step upload flow. It lacks context such as the relationship to kommo_files_upload_part, prerequisites, or constraints (e.g., file size limits), and does not explain several parameters. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 only 20% (only file_uuid has a description), and the tool description does not compensate. It only hints at file_uuid via 'new version', which is already in the schema, and fails to explain file_name, file_size, content_type, or with_preview, leaving the agent without crucial semantic information for those parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('upload session'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'new file or new version' and the return of upload URLs/token. This clearly separates it from kommo_files_upload_part and other file-related tools.

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 implies the tool is the first step for uploading files, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like kommo_files_upload_part or mention the subsequent steps. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names given, so usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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