file_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the purpose but does not mention that the upload is a write operation, any authentication or rate-limit requirements, or what the tool returns (e.g., a file ID). For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward upload tool, covering the main purpose. However, it does not explain the output format or any special behaviors (e.g., size limits, supported file types, error handling), which could be relevant for an agent to make a successful call. This is a minor omission given the simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra insight beyond the schema (e.g., that file_content should be base64, which is already in the schema). It meets the baseline but provides no value beyond it.

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 identifies the tool as uploading a file to GigaChat for multimodal processing, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the siblings (chat, models, etc.) are obviously distinct in function, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (for multimodal processing) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools. Since there are no close siblings, the implied usage is adequate, but it lacks proactive routing or exclusions.

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