wetrack_add_project_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the file is 'registered' and gives the prerequisite, but it does not describe side effects, return behavior, error conditions, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate file names or invalid folder IDs.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence for the core purpose, one sentence for the prerequisite workflow, then a flat parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 moderate complexity, zero annotation coverage, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides the essential workflow and all parameter meanings needed to call it. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; minor missing details are error handling and validation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining all six parameters: project_id is a UUID, file_size is in bytes, s3_url is the upload-returned URL, file_type is a MIME type, and folder_id is a UUID. It does not explicitly flag which parameters are optional, but the schema defaults cover that.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Register an already-uploaded S3 file in project files.' This clearly distinguishes it from related upload and file-management tools and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 explicitly states the required workflow: 'Upload to S3 first using wetrack_get_upload_presign_url, then call this.' This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool and names the prerequisite sibling tool, leaving nothing to inference.

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