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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description goes further and specifies exactly what is destroyed (the uploaded file is deleted from Retiplex storage on inspection/classification/save failure), that the error is returned, and that recovery requires a fresh upload. That is precisely the destructive-consequence and recovery detail an agent needs.

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 what the tool does, then failure behavior, then the recovery constraint. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the failure path and its side effects well and implies success means the file is added to project media. It stops short of describing the successful return payload or validation rules applied during the check, a minor gap for a finalize/validate tool.

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%, including the enum meanings for angle and the required-for conditions on description, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already documented, so the baseline 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?

'Checks a file PUT to an upload_url against the requirements and adds it to the project's media' names a specific verb and resource and makes the two-phase upload flow evident. It does not explicitly name create_media_upload as the required predecessor, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 precondition is stated concretely ('a file PUT to an upload_url'), which tells the agent this is the second step of an upload flow rather than the step that creates the upload. No alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given, but the operating context is clear.

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