Upload document

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds the size constraint and presign hint. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like response format, error cases, or whether the document is immediately attached or queued.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key constraint. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundancy.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description could better explain the interplay between the three input methods (base64, URL, token) and what the function returns. It is sufficient for simple usage but lacks completeness for complex scenarios.

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 high (80%), so the description's role is limited. The description reiterates the base64 constraint but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. No new semantic details are provided for the other 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 clearly states the verb (Upload) and resource (PDF to existing transaction), and mentions size limits. However, it only mentions base64-encoded PDF, while the schema also accepts documentUrl and uploadToken, which may confuse the agent about the full range of input methods.

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 a clear size threshold (≤10MB inline vs presign for larger), which guides when to use this tool versus request_document_upload or similar. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives for non-PDF files, but the context is adequate.

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