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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals an internal verification step: 'We check the file really landed before marking it ready.' This adds meaningful behavior context about validation and state transition that the annotations alone do not convey.

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, purposeful sentences with no filler. The most important information (when to call) is front-loaded, followed by the verification behavior and the downstream requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 workflow-step tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: position in the flow, trigger condition, internal check, and downstream constraint. It does not explicitly describe the return value or failure behavior, but enough context is present for an agent to invoke it correctly in the media-attachment workflow.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states, such as id coming from media_presign and workspaceId's conditional use. No special compensation is needed or provided.

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 action ('finish a media upload'), identifies it as 'Step 2 of attaching an image or video', and clarifies it must be called after the upload finishes. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like media_presign, media_upload_link, and media_upload_status by workflow position.

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?

Provides explicit timing context: 'Call it after the upload finishes.' It also gives a downstream rule ('Only a ready media id can be passed to publish') and the schema adds workspaceId guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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