create_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and required scope, omitting details about default behavior for duplicates, side effects, return format, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It avoids fluff, but could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 has 4 parameters, 2 enums, and no output schema or annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It misses explanation of when to use different content types, how duplicate resolution modes work, and what the result of creation looks like.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the source concept from 'original_source' but adds no new meaning for 'alt', 'content_type', or 'duplicate_resolution_mode' beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the action 'create a file asset' and specifies the source types (external URL or staged upload URL) and supported file types. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_product_image or stage_upload, which share similar purposes.

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 mentions the required access scope ('write_files') and lists supported file types, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use stage_upload first or when create_product_image is more appropriate.

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