declarations_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the uploaded document is what gets validated and filed (nothing is regenerated), that type/year/month come from the document, and that the receipt lands in the dosar like any other filing. This is transparent about the tool's behavior, though it doesn't cover error cases or side effects beyond that.

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 four sentences, each adding value: purpose and formats, metadata inference, downstream usage, and receipt handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant phrasing.

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 simple upload tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers input types, metadata extraction, downstream validation/filing, and receipt behavior. It does not mention error handling or return values, but these are not critical for an upload tool and are unlikely to affect an agent's ability to call it correctly.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond noting accepted file types, which is already in the filePath description. It does not elaborate on companyId, but that parameter is optional and self-explanatory.

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 'Bring' and the resource 'a declaration made in another program', specifies accepted formats (XML or ANAF PDF), and explains that metadata is inferred from the document. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like declarations_validate and declarations_file_via_agent by mentioning they operate on the uploaded document.

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 this tool is for importing external declarations and references downstream tools for validation and filing, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with creation tools like declarations_create, so it stops short of fully explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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