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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description usefully adds that the source is created in a 'pending' state and that a presigned upload capability is returned, but omits constraints present in the schema such as the ~200 MB size ceiling, the credential expiry window, and whether the pending source must later be confirmed or can be abandoned.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and its output, with no filler. It could still be slightly tighter, but every clause carries information.

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?

This is a multi-step, nested-parameter mutation with no output schema, no annotation detail on side effects, and 0% schema description coverage. The description covers only the high-level shape of the call; an agent still lacks the expiry semantics, size limits, and the lifecycle of the 'pending' source after the upload.

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 0% and the tool takes a nested 'upload' object with eight fields (title, slug, collectionSlug, fileName, fileSize, expiresIn, contentType, description) plus ownerHandle. The description only loosely gestures at file content types and adds no meaning for any of these fields, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Prepare a dataset upload: create a pending spatial source') and describes the output ('return a presigned upload capability'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like geobble_source_import_url by naming the upload mechanism, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 listing of accepted GIS formats (GeoJSON, Shapefile, GeoPackage, KML, CSV with coordinates) implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of the URL-ingestion alternative (geobble_source_import_url) or of a required follow-up confirmation step.

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