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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing that it 'persists the deep report upload record' and by requiring the x-amz-version-id header from the PUT, which is critical for correct invocation. It does not discuss failure modes or side effects, but the added persistence detail is substantive.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical about the version source is necessary to disambiguate the parameter and is placed efficiently at the end.

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, the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential workflow context (confirmation after a PUT, specific version requirement, persistence effect). It does not mention error handling or additional prerequisites, but these are largely inferable from the workflow and the provided annotations.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'version' parameter precisely as the x-amz-version-id response header captured during the PUT. The other two parameters, deepReportId and fileName, are not explicitly described but are inferable from the tool's context; the description does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('Confirms'), a specific resource ('a file already PUT to a presigned URL returned by smi_request_upload_url'), and the side effect ('persists the deep report upload record'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like smi_request_upload_url and smi_submit_deep_reports by anchoring it as the post-PUT confirmation 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 provides clear context: it should be used after a file has been PUT to a presigned URL obtained from smi_request_upload_url, and it requires the version header captured during that PUT. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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