Upload Supplier Invoice

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but say nothing about what the commit actually does. The description supplies that: Wint parses the invoice, it enters an approval queue, and an unconfirmed call is a safe dry-run preview. It omits duplicate handling and what a preview returns, but the core side-effect story is clearly disclosed.

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 immediately followed by the preview/commit distinction. No 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a six-parameter upload tool with three mutually alternative file-source inputs and zero required parameters, the description leaves the agent guessing which combination is valid. That is a substantial gap for the tool's core invocation question.

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 coverage is only 17% and six parameters are optional, yet the description only adds meaning for confirm. The critical ambiguity - file_url vs file_base64 vs upload_ids vs file_name as alternative ways to supply the file - is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (send a supplier invoice file to Wint) and anchors it to the corresponding UI action, which makes the intent unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the neighbouring upload_document / upload_other_document tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 confirm gate is explained ("without confirm it only returns a preview"), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. But there is no explicit routing between this tool and upload_document, upload_other_document, or upload_stage, even though all four appear as siblings, leaving the main selection question to inference.

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