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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds the genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact that this call finalizes/consumes the upload yet stops short of installing it, which the name "inspect" alone would mislead on. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about what happens when parts are wrong or the upload is already completed, nor about required permissions.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key constraint ("without installing it"), followed by a routing sentence. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 mutating finalize step with no output schema, the description does sketch the returned payload (kind, size, metadata) and the lifecycle position. It could still say more about failure modes (mismatched parts, repeated calls) and whether the upload survives a failed inspection, but nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

The description never mentions the `body`/`path` parameters, and the reported top-level coverage is 0%, so it does not compensate for the wrappers being undocumented. However, the nested properties (key, parts, etag, partNumber, uploadId, serverId) are thoroughly described in the schema with sourcing hints, and "completes a startAssetUpload" implies those values come from the start call, so an agent is not stranded.

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 chain (completes startAssetUpload) plus the exact output (kind, size, metadata) and the crucial negative scope ("without installing it"). It names the predecessor startAssetUpload and the three follow-up siblings, so the agent can place the tool in the lifecycle without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit branch conditions: install via completeAssetUploads, resource pack via setResourcePack with its key, discard via abortAssetUploads. Every plausible next action is routed, leaving nothing to inference.

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