Upload a file

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the file expires after 24 hours and the tool returns an id that the later write consumes. It does not describe failure modes (e.g. oversized or malformed base64), which keeps it at 4.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the usage trigger, then the format/size constraints, then the return value, then the expiry. Every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating that the tool answers with the file's id, and it adds the 24-hour expiry an agent needs to know for sequencing. Only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a simple three-parameter upload.

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 all three parameters, including the requestId idempotency contract, are already documented in structured data. The description restates that the file is sent as name plus base64 content but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific verb and resource (uploads an odt/doc/docx/txt file), states the format and size limits, and says what it returns (the file's id). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling download_* tools, which move files the other direction.

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?

It gives a clear trigger ('when a later write needs a document, such as a seller delivering a draft'), which tells the agent to call this before a delivery/write step. It stops short of naming a specific sibling (e.g. deliver_seller_order_draft) or stating when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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