Create a document from uploaded files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the create/attach side effects and the auto-extraction of SK QR receipts and ISDOC files, but does not mention return values, authentication needs, or error behavior, leaving gaps in comprehensive transparency.

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 and well-structured: two sentences, action-first, with no redundant filler. It packs essential info (single-call attachment, auto-extraction, optional params) efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete for a creation tool. It explains the core behavior and special file handling, but omits the return value and the organization parameter, making it not fully self-sufficient. Compared to worse examples, it provides enough context to be functional, but not thorough.

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?

The description adds meaning to typeId and invoiceType by calling them 'pinned' and optional, but it does not clarify the 'organization' parameter, which also lacks a schema description. With 75% schema coverage, the tool description provides modest added value but does not fully compensate for the undefined parameter.

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 action: 'Create a new document and attach one or more local files in a single call.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like wflow_upload_document_file by emphasizing the creation of a new document combined with file attachment.

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 implies usage for creating new documents with local files, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions optional typeId and invoiceType, giving some context, but lacks explicit references to sibling tools.

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