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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return value (private link), link identity when replacing a page, and the meaning of a 'file not found' error. However, it does not cover permissions, side effects of publishing, or whether a replacement overwrites existing content.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds workflow context and error recovery. Every sentence is relevant, and there is no redundant restatement 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it describes the workflow, required ticket, return link, and failure recovery well. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about permissions or replacement side effects.

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 five parameters in detail. The description reinforces the ticket relationship to prepare_upload but adds little beyond the schema for title, expiry, project, and password.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Publish the file you just sent with curl after prepare_upload.' It clearly places the tool as step 3 of the upload workflow and distinguishes it from prepare_upload, which must already have run.

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?

It gives clear usage context: call this after prepare_upload and after sending the file with curl, passing the ticket. It also names the recovery path when the file is not found. It does not state when not to use it versus alternatives like create_page.

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