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

Adds a lot beyond annotations: the current world is untouched, the archive imports asynchronously over 'minutes' into a new backup with reason 'upload' visible in listBackups, and it fails over 4 GiB or on low balance. This is exactly the post-state and failure-mode detail an agent can't infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the call condition, then consequences, then the next action and failure limits. No 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers post-state and follow-up well. The one gap is whether the completion response returns a backupId or only listBackups reveals it, which the agent must check to chain restoreBackup.

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 description names jobId, uploadId, key and ETags as the payload, matching the required nested body fields and reinforcing that ETags must be carried from each PUT. It omits the required serverId, which only the schema documents.

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?

Specific verb+resource: finalizes a multipart world upload and triggers an import, clearly distinct from startWorldUpload/abortWorldUpload by the 'after every piece is uploaded' framing. It doesn't name the sibling it supersedes explicitly, keeping it just below the top score.

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?

States the trigger condition (after every piece is uploaded) and the downstream step (run restoreBackup with that backupId to play it). No explicit statement of when NOT to call (e.g. use abortWorldUpload on failure), which the sibling list makes relevant.

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