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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it verifies bytes and persists a reusable asset, but does not disclose what happens on retry (annotations say not idempotent, so duplicates are plausible) or hash-mismatch behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 with the action and flow position front-loaded, and no filler. 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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating return fields ('contentHashSha256, fileSizeBytes, mimeType') is redundant. For an 11-parameter, non-idempotent mutation that ties into workspace/project association and several auto-processing flags, the description says nothing about those side effects, leaving real gaps.

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 82%, so the schema already documents nearly all 11 parameters. The description only echoes contentHashSha256 verification, which is already described in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning. 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 ('verify uploaded bytes and save a reusable workspace asset') and places the call in the upload flow ('after presigned PUT'), so an agent can distinguish it from media_upload_start and media_upload_file. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'after presigned PUT' gives clear sequential context that tells the agent when this finalization step applies. It gives no exclusions or retry/abort conditions, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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