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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is idempotent ('Safe to repeat'), it preserves earlier archives ('earlier archives stay'), it queues background work, and it returns 409 when no upload is pending. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and failure modes.

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 compact and information-dense. Every sentence earns its place: the step context, the action, the failure mode, the idempotency, and the follow-up tool. It is front-loaded with the most important context ('Step 3 of 3, after the PUT') and contains 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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete. It explains the workflow position, the side effects, the error condition, the retry safety, and the next step (poll get_archive_status). No output schema exists, but the description appropriately routes the agent to the status tool for results.

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 both parameters (archiveId and applicationId) with their sources. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does reference the workflow context ('as answered by start_archive_upload', 'as returned by list_applications') in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 as 'Step 3 of 3, after the PUT' and specifies the action: 'adds the archive to the game's form' and 'queues unpacking and the Bridge SDK analysis'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_archive_upload and get_archive_status, and the step context makes its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('Step 3 of 3, after the PUT'), what happens if used prematurely ('Refused with 409 while nothing is uploaded'), and that it is safe to repeat. It also directs the agent to poll get_archive_status for the result, providing clear guidance on the workflow and alternatives.

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