Upload Documents to Debeka

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds that the tool returns a success message listing uploaded files or error details, and implies state change by 'uploads.' It does not address failure modes, duplicate uploads, or file size limits, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-organized into summary, args, returns, and example, with the key prerequisite called out early. The first two sentences are somewhat redundant ('Uploads PDF documents...' followed by 'This tool uploads...'), but overall it is compact and scannable.

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 single-parameter tool with strong schema coverage, the description is sufficient: it names the prerequisite tools, describes the input, and states expected return behavior. It does not detail every edge case or failure scenario, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 file_paths as an array of absolute PDF file paths. The description mostly restates this and adds an example. That example is helpful but does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific action (upload PDFs), the target resource (the Debeka Leistungsauftrag form), and the accepted input. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like debeka_fill_credentials or debeka_submit, which perform different steps in the same workflow.

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 ordering guidance: 'Make sure to call debeka_open_page and debeka_fill_credentials first.' This is valuable workflow context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternative approaches, so it stops short of a 5.

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