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

The description goes beyond the limited annotations (all false hints) by stating exactly what happens and what does not: it returns a presigned PUT URL and a curl command, moves no bytes, and mutates nothing in storyflo. This level of side-effect transparency is excellent.

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?

The description is four well-structured sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: purpose, when-to-use, return value, and side-effect clarification. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return value (presigned PUT URL + curl command) and the complete workflow context (the user must then call publisher_attach_audio). This makes the tool's behavior self-contained and unambiguous.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds a note about audio sources but does not deepen parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('Get a one-time upload URL') and the resource ('an episode's source audio'), and it specifies the exact scenario where it is needed ('when an episode shows as awaiting'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly contrasting it with the later publisher_attach_audio step.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when an episode shows as awaiting.' It also clarifies the workflow boundary: nothing is uploaded until publisher_attach_audio is called, preventing misuse. This effectively differentiates it from the attach step.

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