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

Beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses that the response contains uploadUrl and headers, that the PUT must happen within an hour with exactly those headers, and that confirmation is a separate later step. It does not spell out that confirmation replaces an existing cover, but the schema covers that and the annotation already flags destructiveness.

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?

Two sentences deliver the purpose, output, time constraint, and next step with no filler. The workflow is front-loaded.

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 stateful first-step upload tool, the description gives the response shape, the required action, the validity window, and the follow-up call. With the rich parameter schema and annotations, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 explains all four parameters in detail. The description adds a useful curl example but does not materially expand on parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Step 1 of 3 of uploading one cover') and explains what the tool returns (uploadUrl and headers). It clearly distinguishes itself from confirm_cover_upload by naming it as the next step and from archive uploads by the word 'cover'.

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?

It explicitly positions the tool as the first step in a three-step cover-upload flow and instructs the caller to PUT the file then call confirm_cover_upload. It does not explicitly exclude start_archive_upload, but the 'cover' resource makes the intended context clear.

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