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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: 'No login, one hour, up to 100 MB per file', the instruction to 'Show the link exactly as returned', and the fact that the user drops everything at once while the page sorts it.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, and most sentences carry information. But it is a dense run-on block with no structural separation between purpose, usage, parameter rules, and constraints, and contains mild redundancy ('never ask for attachments and never inline them'). Readable but not efficiently structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers everything an agent needs: the workflow, the files/folders distinction, the follow-up call to get_app_files, and the access/size/time constraints. Nothing material for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description meaningfully elaborates beyond the schema: files are 'each file the code uses in one specific place' (logo, hero image) whereas folders are 'a set the code does not tell apart', any number, any order, with caption added when each one must be named. This clarifies the semantic intent of the two structures rather than merely restating field names.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb+resource (get an upload link for user files that become part of the app's code) and scopes it precisely ('stay as they are until the next build'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from write_app_files and get_app_files by stating what content does and does not belong here, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening a 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use rules (files vs folders), explicit exclusions ('Content the owner adds or changes after launch... never goes here, not even as a first batch'), and the explicit next step ('call get_app_files and put the stored paths in the code'). It even routes the agent to plan_app for the post-launch owner content case.

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