upload_docqa_file

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

The description includes a '[mutation]' tag to indicate side effects, but no annotations exist. Beyond noting it's a mutation, it does not disclose processing time, success/failure conditions, or any other behavioral traits.

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 sentence with a useful [mutation] tag, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficient 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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits details like return value, file size limits, or processing behavior. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already explains 'assistant_id' and 'file'. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Subir archivo a Doc-QA') and explains the purpose: upload a document so the assistant can answer questions about its content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_docqa_files' or 'check_docqa_file_status'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites or conditions. The description only states what it does without any context for selection.

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