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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description goes much further: it describes the one-time link semantics, the exact PUT workflow with Content-Type, the return values, and the required follow-up call to complete_upload. This is rich behavioral context well beyond the annotation surface.

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-loaded with the purpose, then the workflow, then the exclusion case. Every sentence earns its place, including the curl example, which gives an agent an actionable template rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the returns (uploadUrl and blobName) and the complete two-step flow through complete_upload. For a mutation tool whose result is a URL plus a follow-up step, nothing essential 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% and the single fileName parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal param-level context (the file is large or local, and Content-Type matters for the PUT), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get a one-time link for uploading a large or local file straight to the user's Unsora storage') and implicitly contrasts with upload_file by noting it is 'far beyond upload_file's limits.' An agent can immediately tell this apart from the sibling upload tools.

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 states both the when ('Only useful when you can send HTTP requests yourself, e.g. a coding agent with a shell') and the when-not, naming the alternative ('In chat hosts that show apps, call list_uploads instead'). The full use/avoid decision is spelled out.

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