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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), but the description adds two non-obvious traits: the project is private and it expires in 24h. The 24h expiry in particular is behaviorally important and absent from annotations. It stops short of explaining what happens if rights aren't attested.

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, no waste, with the core action front-loaded. Efficient but arguably too terse given the parameter surface it must support.

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 6-parameter, 5-required mutation with 0% schema description coverage, the description is very thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be covered, and annotations handle safety, but the required inputs receive almost no explanation.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely gestures at rights_attested via 'Confirm the user's rights' and touches visibility via 'private', leaving object_key, original_filename, legal_version, and the idempotency_key entirely undocumented.

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 (Create) and resource (private project), and the 'after upload' clause places it in the workflow. It hints at its position relative to upload flow but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ingest_project or get_project.

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?

'After upload' gives real ordering context and 'Confirm the user's rights' is a stated precondition. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no when-not-to-use guidance, so routing must be inferred.

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