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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the exact permission scopes required, that the first call is a no-op validation pass, that unknown fields are refused by name, and that the first call returns a summary plus confirm_token. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's confirmation protocol is genuinely additive context rather than repetition.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the required scopes before the protocol. The opening sentence duplicates the title verbatim, which is mild waste, but nothing else is padded.

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 two-phase tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, the confirmation gate, and the first call's return shape. It does not say what the second (committing) call returns or how partial failures behave, which is the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 50%: confirm_token is documented in the schema, file_id is not. The description compensates by explaining the confirm_token lifecycle in flow terms ('call again with the same arguments plus confirm_token'), which is richer than the schema note. file_id's meaning is only implied by the tool name.

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 plus a scope qualifier ('an upload no record holds'), which meaningfully narrows which files are eligible. It does not name siblings such as remove_document or abort_multipart_upload, so the agent must infer the boundary from context, but the operation itself 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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: call twice, show the summary to the person, and only re-call after they agree. That is strong when-to-use guidance for the flow itself. It stops short of excluding alternatives (e.g., when to prefer abort_multipart_upload or remove_document instead).

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