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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the required 'upload_urls:write' scope and the returned values (signed_url and storage path), but it does not disclose URL expiration or reuse constraints.

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?

The description is long but front-loads the core purpose and return values, then uses a numbered list for the six upload paths. The final ambiguity reminder slightly duplicates the earlier 'always clarify the target' instruction, preventing a perfect score.

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 explains the return values ('signed_url' and storage path) that an agent needs after the call. It also covers scope, routing, and ambiguity handling, so it is complete for a 2-parameter pre-upload 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds substantial meaning by mapping each bucket to its target upload path and follow-up tool. It does not add further detail for file_name beyond the schema's 'including extension' description.

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+resource: 'Generate a signed upload URL for uploading a file to AssetLab storage.' It also distinguishes the tool's role in the upload workflow by naming downstream tools and buckets, so an agent can tell it apart from direct create/upload 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('When a user wants to upload a file') and routes six bucket/target combinations to the correct follow-up tools (update_asset, create_asset_document, etc.). It also instructs the agent to ask the user when ambiguous and notes the required scope.

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