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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing that the call performs integrity verification against declared size and SHA-256. It does not say what happens when verification fails or whether finalization is irreversible, which is the main remaining behavioral gap for a mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the verification behavior and follow-up. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, integrity checks, and the downstream step. For a mutation that finalizes an upload, the missing piece is failure semantics on checksum mismatch and any post-finalization immutability guarantee.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry it, and it never mentions artifact_id or clarifies that it is the id returned by the prepare/open step. Only a weak indirect hint ('declared size and SHA-256') suggests the artifact carries upload metadata; an agent must infer the identifier's provenance entirely.

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 ('Finalize an uploaded design source after transfer') plus the concrete operations performed (size and SHA-256 verification). Sibling differentiation is implied by the 'after transfer' sequencing rather than stated explicitly against prepare_design_source_upload or open_design_source_upload, but an agent can still identify the tool's role in the upload lifecycle.

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 clear preconditions ('after transfer') and an explicit next step ('Then read_design_source to extract cited PDF pages or validate the CSV heat map'), which routes the agent correctly through the workflow. It stops short of stating when not to call it, e.g. before transfer completes or on an already-finalized artifact.

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