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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context by stating the upload's stored parts are permanently freed and that 'This action cannot be undone.' This goes beyond the simple destructive flag and clarifies the irreversible side effect.

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 front-loaded and clear, but the final sentence ('Use this when a chunked upload should be cancelled and its stored parts freed.') largely repeats the first two sentences. The redundancy does not add new information, so it could be trimmed.

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 destructive, low-complexity tool, the description covers the critical aspects: what it does, when to use it, when not to use it, and irreversibility. The schema fully documents the two required parameters, and there is no output schema demanding explanation. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Both parameters have full descriptions in the schema, and the description itself does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Abort an in-progress chunked upload') and the resource it affects, and explains the key consequence ('permanently free its stored parts'). This clearly distinguishes it from completion-oriented sibling tools like complete_multipart_upload.

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 description explicitly says when to use it ('Use only when the upload should be cancelled') and when not to use it ('do not use this after all parts have been uploaded if you intend to complete the upload'). This gives the agent a clear decision rule.

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