upload_binary

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: reads file from absolute path on server filesystem, encodes, writes via ORM, and returns success/error. It also notes that no base64 appears in AI context, enhancing transparency for a write operation.

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 paragraph that front-loads a helpful tip, then states the primary action, migration use case, and return format. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main use case and return format, but lacks details on error handling, file limitations, or parameter constraints. It references sibling download_binary but not fetch_and_upload.

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 coverage is 0%, but parameter names are self-explanatory. The description adds context for source_path (absolute path on server) and field (binary field), but does not detail model or record_id. This partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool uploads a local file into an Odoo record's binary field, distinguishing it from siblings like download_binary and fetch_and_upload. It specifies the verb 'upload' and resource 'file into Odoo record's binary field', with additional context about reading from source_path and encoding.

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 explicit guidance: check find_skill/list_workflows for recipes, and use this as the target step in a cross-instance binary migration with download_binary. It does not list when not to use it, but the migration context clearly distinguishes from alternatives.

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