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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the ETag provenance ('from the PUT response header; quotes optional'), the part-size rule ('all parts except the last must be the same size'), and the abort semantics. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether retrying with the same upload_id is safe, even though idempotentHint=true is declared, and abort's relationship to destructiveHint=false could be clearer.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the operation, then parameter guidance, then the abort alternative. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

Covers the workflow position, the required part metadata, the size constraint, the abort path, and the return value ('the project_key'), which matters since no output schema exists. Nothing an agent needs 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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining what the parts array must contain ('every uploaded part's number and ETag'), where the ETag comes from, and what abort does. upload_id and project_key remain undocumented in both places, so it isn't fully complete.

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 ('Finish a MULTIPART project upload'), ties it to the initiating sibling doseedo_get_project_upload_url, and names the downstream consumers (doseedo_convert_project / doseedo_import_project). An agent can place it precisely in the upload workflow without opening a schema.

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 this is the step after doseedo_get_project_upload_url and before convert/import, and names the escape hatch ('abort:true discards the upload instead'). When-to-use and the alternative path are both spelled out.

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