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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral context: it creates a job, returns presigned upload URLs, and requires a subsequent call to finish_data_job. It also discloses the side effect of creating a redundant job if misused. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail the upload process or job lifecycle fully.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence and a warning paragraph. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, explaining the workflow and the redundancy pitfall. The front-loading is good, with the core purpose stated first.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-step workflow, potential redundancy), the description covers the key points: what it does, how to proceed, and when to avoid it. It doesn't explain the upload instructions or job completion details, but the output schema likely covers return values, and the description points to finish_data_job for the next step. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the relationship between specName and fileNames (processing files through a configured spec) and the workflow (upload then finish), but it doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'First step of processing new data files through an already-configured data spec: creates a job and returns presigned upload URL(s) for each file.' It specifies the verb (creates), the resource (job), and the scope (for new data files), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like finish_data_job and onboard_data_source.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It warns against calling this tool right after onboarding or spec update unless loadSampleData was false, and explains the alternative (using the returned lastJobId). It also clarifies the intended use case: 'Only use this for files beyond the initial sample.'

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