qdrant_points_upsert

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'replace' aligns. The description adds the failure mode if collection is missing. The nested PointInput schema description further clarifies that embedding inference variants are not accepted, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 brief opening sentence, a one-line error note, and a compact example. Every sentence earns its place. The front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan. No redundancy or fluff.

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 an output schema present (per context) and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core action, error behavior, and provides an example. Minor omissions like vector dimension validation are not critical for a typical upsert call. Overall quite complete.

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 main description doesn't detail each parameter, but the example shows the expected structure for collection_name and points. The nested schema description explains that id is a plain integer/string, vector is an array, and payload is optional. This adds meaning beyond the raw types, though it doesn't fully cover all edge cases (e.g., vector dimension requirements).

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 states a clear verb ('Insert or replace') and resource ('points') with specific components (id, vector, payload). It includes a concrete example that distinguishes it from sibling tools like qdrant_points_get or qdrant_points_delete. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 writing/updating points. It mentions an error if the collection doesn't exist, which implicitly guides the agent to ensure the collection exists (e.g., via qdrant_collection_exists or create). However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool. Clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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