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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the return shape {received_bytes, sha256} and the verification-and-resend workflow for hash mismatch, plus the 'send EXACT bytes, never retype' caution.

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-loaded with the core action, then telegraphic arg notes and the verification contract. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 correctly discloses the return values, and with 0% schema coverage it documents all four parameters. It omits the surrounding workflow (that a batch must first be started, and that the batch is finalized elsewhere) and any limits on file size or count, which are the remaining gaps for a 4-parameter batch 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: batch_ref is identified as the pk_... park_ref, path is relative and folders are allowed, and content vs content_base64 is clarified as text OR binary. It stops short of saying whether the two content fields are mutually exclusive in practice or what happens if both are supplied.

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 with scope: 'Add ONE file to the parked batch.' The count constraint ('ONE') and the reference to a 'parked batch' distinguish it from siblings like yetty_batch_start and yetty_batch_end, and an agent can tell immediately what it does.

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 phrase 'parked batch' implies a prerequisite (a batch created via yetty_batch_start and presumably closed with yetty_batch_end) and 'Add ONE file' implies one call per file, but neither the prerequisite nor the sequencing is stated explicitly. There is no named alternative or exclusion, so usage is only implied.

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