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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds important behavioral context: it returns PUT upload URLs (confirming a state-changing operation) and mentions pricing implications. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The most critical information (workflow order and upload requirement) is front-loaded, and the pricing note is placed last, making the description easy to scan and act upon.

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 tool that creates a training job, the description covers the essential workflow (quoting, uploading, starting), return value (upload URLs), and cost behavior. With an output schema available, it doesn't need to enumerate outputs further. It slightly assumes the agent knows to have a quote, but the explicit 'Use after' mitigates that.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds minimal detail about individual parameters. It does tie the 'images' parameter to the upload URL concept, but steps, modelName, and subjectType are left to the schema. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description adds only a marginal extra layer of meaning.

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 role: it declares images and returns upload URLs, and it is positioned in the workflow after quoting and before starting training. This gives a specific verb–resource pair and distinguishes it from related siblings like create_training_job or quote_image_training.

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?

Explicit sequencing is provided: 'Use after quote_image_training' and 'Upload every image before calling start_image_training'. It also explains the free first run and balance reservation, giving agents clear decision points for when to invoke this tool.

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