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

Annotations cover idempotency and safety, but the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: an asset may still be processing after completion and the result reports that state, which is not captured by any structured field.

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?

Three tight sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded, then the input source, then the fallback path. No filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does so by explaining that the result may report in-progress processing. Combined with the workflow routing, an agent has everything needed 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 coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining where assetId comes from (begin_asset_upload), and projectId is documented in the schema itself including the null/open-project behavior.

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 ('Complete an upload') and explicitly scopes it to after the upload commands succeed, distinguishing it from begin_asset_upload and wait_for_asset by name.

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 explicit prerequisites (upload commands must have succeeded), names the required input provenance (Asset ID from begin_asset_upload), and routes to the alternative (wait_for_asset) with the exact condition that selects it.

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