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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description discloses that calling it creates an Inbox interview and that passing interview_id avoids creating a new card. This adds meaningful side-effect context for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core action, output type, multipart condition, and resume behavior with no filler. The key information is front-loaded.

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 appropriately names the return values: presigned R2 upload URL or multipart upload_id. It covers resume behavior and large-file handling, though it does not specify response field names or next-step workflow with sibling confirm/sign tools.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description in the input schema. The tool description adds general context about multipart and resume behavior but does not significantly enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'create an Inbox interview' and return a presigned R2 upload URL or multipart upload_id. It clearly distinguishes this prepare step from the sibling confirm/sign tools by describing the preparation role.

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 gives clear context: it is app-only, handles both single-upload and large-file multipart cases, and explains how to resume with interview_id and upload_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is well implied.

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