Request File Upload

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but say nothing about the workflow. The description supplies the missing behavioral layer: the link is user-opened (out-of-band), an id is pre-allocated, the link expires, and the caller must poll talonic_get_document until 'completed' before calling talonic_extract. It even enumerates terminal failure states (ocr_failed, extraction_failed, error) and instructs the agent to stop polling — genuinely actionable context not present in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then cleanly segmented into USE WHEN / NOT FOR / ARGS / RETURNS. Every sentence carries distinct information — no restatement of the name or filler.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description goes beyond it to explain the multi-step human-in-the-loop protocol (poll, then extract, with exit conditions on failure), which is exactly the orchestration knowledge an agent needs and structured fields cannot convey.

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% and the parameter's own description already covers extension and MIME-type inference. The 'ARGS: filename (with extension)' line adds a light reinforcement of the extension requirement but nothing the schema doesn't already state, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a browser upload link... to add a file to their workspace') and immediately names what it returns (link + pre-allocated document_id). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like talonic_extract (URL-based ingestion) and talonic_get_document (status polling).

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?

Explicit USE WHEN clause defines the trigger condition (client cannot attach file bytes, or file too large for tool arguments). NOT FOR clause names two concrete alternatives and routes to them (existing document → document_id; public file → file_url on talonic_extract). Both when and when-not are covered.

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