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

Annotations already declare this as a non-destructive, closed-world write, so the description is not burdened with the safety profile. It usefully adds behavioral context the annotations lack: it must run after the byte upload and requires the short-lived uploadToken to be passed unchanged.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the workflow position, then the precondition, then the parameter instruction. No filler.

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 write tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial sequencing and token-reuse context. Minor gaps around error/expiry handling remain but are not essential to correct invocation.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description still adds meaning by requiring that the same metadata be passed (cross-step consistency with prepare-document-upload), which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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 action (create the Classic document) tied to a precise workflow position (Step 3 of document upload), and by naming the prepare-document-upload prerequisite it separates itself cleanly from its sibling. An agent can tell what this does and where it sits in the flow.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition 'Call only after bytes were uploaded to the presigned POST target from prepare-document-upload,' giving a clear trigger. It stops short of naming failure modes or what to do if the upload/token has expired, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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