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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write-but-not-destructive profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context - the returned URL and the free-plan watermarking side effect - but says nothing about share visibility, URL expiry, or whether re-sharing the same path is idempotent.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the primary outcome (upload and URL return) is front-loaded and the plan caveat follows as a secondary warning.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive share tool with no output schema, stating the return value (URL) and the watermark caveat is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around URL lifetime/visibility, but nothing blocking.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema itself (path is project-relative, project_id comes from composer_project_create). The description adds nothing beyond reinforcing that the file lives inside the project, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (uploads), the resource (image, video or audio file from the project) and the result (returns its URL). It implicitly distinguishes itself from upload_file/upload_file_widget by scoping the source to files already in the project, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for turning an existing project asset into a shareable URL, since 'from the project' signals the file must already exist. There is no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of the upload_file alternatives that look similar.

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