dosare_files_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses file formats (PDF, JPG, PNG, TIFF), size limit (10 MB), and a key consequence (files become the zip attachment of the C168). This provides useful behavioral insight beyond the schema. It doesn't mention error conditions or side effects, but the disclosed details are substantial.

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, well-structured sentence with a colon introducing the list of kinds. It is front-loaded with the primary action and constraints, with no wasted words. Every part serves a purpose.

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 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the kinds, formats, size, and downstream effect. It does not mention response details or error conditions, but these are not critical for a basic upload. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's 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?

The schema covers id, path, and companyId with descriptions, but the 'kind' parameter only has an enum without explanation. The description explains each enum value (contract, act_aditional, incetare, declaratie, altele) in context, adding significant meaning. It also clarifies the file constraints (formats, size) that relate to the path parameter. This goes beyond schema coverage.

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 (put a file into a dosar) and the resource (dosar). It lists the specific kinds of documents and formats, making it unambiguous and distinct from siblings like dosare_files_download. The purpose is specific and immediately understandable.

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 conveys when to use it (for adding files to a dosar) and provides document type guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., dosare_files_download for retrieval). It gives clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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