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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that uploadUrl is a secret, the 50MB zip limit, that shell/executable files are skipped and reported, that zipUploadId is single-use, and the 30-minute expiry window. This adds significant behavioral context without contradicting any annotation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Flow, Rules, Returns) and every sentence provides necessary information. It is detailed but not verbose, with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool that is part of a multi-step import process, the description covers the entire flow, constraints, secrets, and return values. Even without an output schema, it lists exactly what the tool returns, making it fully self-contained for correct usage.

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 enriches the single parameter 'purpose' far beyond the schema's enum. It explains when to omit it, what passing 'asset' means, and the exclusivity rules (asset artifacts can only be created from reserved uploads). This adds essential meaning that the schema alone lacks.

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 states the tool's specific purpose: it is step 1 of the zip import flow for artifact-create, used for imports with binaries or large source. It distinguishes from inline file passing and implicitly from the asset upload sibling by explaining the purpose parameter, making its role unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for binaries or over ~100 KB of source) versus the alternative (inline for small text-only projects). It also outlines the full multi-step flow, including the required sequence and the use of artifact-create afterwards, giving clear context for selection.

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