tealfabric_upload_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly repeats the schema's note that the file keeps its original name. It says nothing about overwrite/conflict behavior when a file of that name already exists, size limits, required permissions, or what the call returns after upload.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the use case; no filler. Minor redundancy between 'documents storage' and the restated name behavior keeps it off a 5.

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?

With only three parameters, two required and one documented as ignored, the description is adequate to attempt a call. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it omits the post-call picture: overwrite semantics, error conditions, and whether anything is returned.

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%, including the unusual 'tenant_id is ignored by the API' caveat, so the schema already does the parameter work. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond restating that the stored name comes from the uploaded file.

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 ('Upload a file to Tealfabric documents storage') and adds a concrete use case ('publish built package files for delivery'), which separates it from read/list siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from tealfabric_write_document_text or tealfabric_move_document, so an agent still has to infer that this is the binary-upload path.

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?

'Use to publish built package files for delivery' gives one implied scenario, which is more than nothing. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over write_document_text, no exclusions, and no stated prerequisites (auth tenant, destination directory must exist).

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