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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: max 100 per batch, 10-minute URL expiry, parallel uploads allowed, duplicate code_id in one batch causes an error, and staging isolation per user×project. This is consistent with idempotentHint=false (fresh URLs each call). Return shape is also sketched, though minor details like auth failure or quota behavior are absent.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and is organized into input/output sections, so an agent can locate details quickly. The embedded curl example and several tangential notes (staging split, ADL root handling) make it denser than strictly necessary, though most lines earn their place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the return fields (project_id, urls with code_id/upload_url/content_key, expires_in=600), which compensates. Combined with constraints, error conditions, and the commit_uploaded_codes handoff, an agent has everything needed to call and chain this tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: files are 1–100 and required, urls[] order mirrors input files[] order, project_id is for appending to an existing project, and duplicate code_id fails. That is meaningful additional meaning over the schema.

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 and resource: issues presigned PUT URLs for multiple provisioning files in a single call, with an explicit cap of 100. The batch scope is unambiguous, and the contrast with a single-file alternative is legible from the name plus '複数...1 回の呼び出しで' even though the sibling is not named.

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?

Gives a clear operational context: login required, upload via HTTP PUT, then feed results into commit_uploaded_codes, with a note that an ADL root file can be added as one more entry. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from the singular request_upload_url sibling or stating exclusions.

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