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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine workflow context (byte upload must precede this call, metadata plus token must be passed unchanged) but does not address idempotency, behavior on metadata/checksum mismatch, or what is returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the step position and the gating condition. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers sequencing, token handling, and the resulting artifact type. The only missing element is what the call yields on success (e.g., a document ID), which an agent may want to chain into get-document.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning beyond it by instructing that the same metadata plus uploadToken must be passed 'unchanged' from prepare-document-upload, tying the required parameters to the prior step rather than restating them.

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 ('create the Classic document') and explicitly positions itself as 'Step 3 of document upload'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling prepare-document-upload by naming that tool as the source of the uploadToken.

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 an explicit precondition: 'Call only after bytes were uploaded to the presigned POST target from prepare-document-upload.' The alternative/complementary tool is named and the ordering rule is unambiguous.

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