Upload a file to Wiro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the mutation nature and non-idempotency. The description adds the 'remotely accessible file' clarity (implying fetching from a URL) but doesn't disclose potential side effects like storage limits, overwrites, or failure modes. Given annotations carry the safety profile and the description adds some context, it's adequate but not rich.

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?

Two succinct sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is placed right after. Every sentence serves a purpose and the formatting is tight.

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 an output schema (which would define return values), annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema covers parameters, the description provides the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and the source requirement. It could mention storage implications or return values, but those are covered by structured data, so this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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% for both parameters (url and file_name). The description itself doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it implicitly references the url via 'remotely accessible file' but provides no extra formatting or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb (Upload) and resource (a remotely accessible file to Wiro). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting that it's only needed when the model schema requires a Wiro-hosted file or the same file will be reused, which differentiates it from the task/model-related siblings.

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 articulates when to use this tool vs. direct URLs: 'Most models accept source URLs directly, so use this only when the model schema requires a Wiro-hosted file or the same file will be reused.' This gives clear usage conditions and implies not using it for simple cases, effectively routing the agent.

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