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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the URL is short-lived and owner-bound, the object remains private, is never executed or extracted by RigorLoop, and must be finalized. These details significantly aid an agent in understanding side effects and prerequisites.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes only high-value qualifiers about lifecycle, ownership, and privacy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description covers the lifecycle (short-lived, must finalize), ownership constraints, privacy guarantees, and the required next step. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 only 33%, and the description doesn't explain individual parameters like size_bytes, checksum_sha256, or kind. It does add context about the source file and same-agent-key ownership, which helps interpret research_bounty_id, but most parameter semantics rely on self-explanatory names.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('short-lived owner-bound upload URL'), and the scope ('one private source file on a draft created by the same Bearer agent key'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool complete_bounty_file_upload by explicitly mentioning the required finalization step.

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 says the upload must be finalized with complete_bounty_file_upload and scopes usage to drafts created by the same Bearer agent key, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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