Upload document

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (which only mark readOnlyHint and destructiveHint as false). It discloses supported file types, maximum file size, filename behavior for URL uploads, and the structure of the success response (next_steps, agent_guidance). This fully informs the agent of important behavioral traits.

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 concise (approximately 5 sentences) with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by constraints, then post-upload behavior. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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's complexity (three input methods, size limits, filename handling, and structured return values), the description covers all critical aspects. The existence of an output schema is noted, so the description does not need to detail return fields; it correctly highlights the key post-upload guidance behavior.

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?

Every parameter in the input schema has a schema description, but the tool description adds further meaning: it explains that resource_uri is preferred when supported, clarifies the path safety constraint for file_path (SAFE_UPLOAD_BASE), and notes when filename is required. This adds significant value beyond the schema alone.

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 document to SignNow') and specifies the three methods of input (local file path, public URL, or MCP resource attachment). It is a specific verb+resource that differentiates from sibling tools which focus on invites, templates, and other operations.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool (to upload a document) and crucially explains what to do after success: present next_steps options to the user and wait for a decision before calling any follow-up tool. It covers constraints like file types, max size, and a note about URL filename inference, but does not explicitly list when not to use it vs alternatives; however, the context of sibling tools makes this unnecessary.

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