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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, not open-world). The description adds two pieces of context beyond them: the required scope (asset_documents:write) and the ordering dependency on create_upload_url. It does not state failure behavior or idempotency consequences, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tightly written sentences, zero filler, with the action and its prerequisite front-loaded. Every clause earns its 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?

For a create tool with full schema coverage, present annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential workflow prerequisite and auth scope. Minor gaps remain (no mention of validation failures or duplicate-name behavior), but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an asset document record'), and the parenthetical ties it to the create_upload_url workflow, which separates it from the many sibling create_*_document tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite ('after uploading the file via create_upload_url'), which is exactly the sequencing an agent needs before invoking this tool. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, but the workflow context is strong.

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