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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the URL is signed, will reject with 403 on incorrect headers, requires no auth header on the PUT, and that contentType is inferred if omitted. It also explains failure behavior for unsupported platforms and instructs not to proceed to create_post on PUT failure.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, step-by-step usage, and critical security behavior. It front-loads the core purpose and then structures the upload flow clearly, with only a minor intentional repetition of the header requirement for emphasis.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is notably complete: it names the returned artifacts (uploadUrl, putHeaders, read url), explains the 24-hour validity, gives the required header semantics, and specifies the exact three-step calling sequence. An agent has enough information to call the tool and integrate with create_post correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains filename extension drives content-type inference, contentType is optional, and platform enables early unsupported-file validation. However, bytes is not addressed at all, which leaves one parameter without added meaning.

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 returns a signed PUT URL for direct media upload to storage and a 24-hour read URL for use with create_post. It identifies the specific verb, resource, and integration point, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_post and get_account_status.

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 provides an explicit step-by-step workflow: call this tool, PUT to uploadUrl with exact headers, then pass the returned url to create_post only on success. It also explains when to pass platform for early validation and warns against calling create_post if the PUT fails, though it does not mention alternative upload tools or explicit exclusions.

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