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

Adds operational context beyond annotations: the response contains uploadUrl and headers, the PUT must use those exact headers and the exact byte length, and the URL expires within an hour, with a concrete curl example. It stops short of explaining the meaning of destructiveHint=true (e.g. what prior archive state is affected), but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is strong.

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?

Front-loads the step position, then prerequisite, then return contract and deadline, then next tool. Every clause is operative (checklist, uploadUrl/headers, one-hour window, example command) with no padding.

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 workflow-step tool with no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite, the returned fields, the deadline, the transport mechanism, and the next step — everything an agent needs to invoke it and continue correctly.

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 all three parameters (name, contentSize, applicationId) are already documented in the schema, including the size limit and version-naming convention. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Step 1 of 3 of uploading a build') and names its position in a workflow, letting an agent distinguish it from confirm_archive_upload and start_cover_upload without opening the schema.

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 names the prerequisite tool (read get_game_checklist and check the build against each item first) and the follow-up tool (then call confirm_archive_upload), so the agent knows exactly when in the sequence to use it.

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