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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the 2 GB size limit, private page behavior, returned link and upload_id, and the condition that upload must finish before the ID is used as source_id. It does not cover link expiry, single-use behavior, or authentication requirements, but it adds substantial behavioral context for a create operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by return values and lifecycle guidance. Every sentence contributes information without repetition.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, and the description explains the important outputs: the link and upload_id. It is nearly complete, though link expiration and upload retry behavior are not mentioned.

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%, and the for_tool enum is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning about how to choose among enum values, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: it creates a private Klipa upload page for a user's own video or audio file. It also identifies the two returned artifacts, the link and upload_id, making the tool's role distinct from the processing 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?

The description makes clear this is for uploading a file from the user's own device and notes that the resulting upload_id can be used as source_id with processing tools after upload completes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the upload-specific context is clear.

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