create_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states that only the metadata entry is created, not the file content, and enumerates supported types. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, idempotency, or response behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear workflow pointer and a structured list of supported types. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a metadata-creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the creation flow and how to proceed with content upload. It could mention what the response contains or error scenarios, but the core usage is well-covered.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds extra meaning by mapping file types to their real-world file extensions (e.g., MACRO -> .rec, SWAGGER -> .json/.yaml), which goes beyond the enum labels.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create file metadata entry.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly directing users to 'upload_file_content' for the actual file upload.

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 explicitly provides usage context: 'After creating, use upload_file_content to upload the actual file.' This explains the workflow and points to the relevant sibling tool. Supporting file types further guides when this tool is applicable.

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