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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context beyond annotations: user approval is required, confirmed=true gates the write, and writes are never retried automatically.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and sequence, with no filler. Every sentence contributes either purpose, prerequisite, or write behavior.

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?

The description covers the high-level workflow and approval gate well for a destructive write. However, it leaves important nested body parameters unexplained, which matters given the low schema description coverage.

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 low at 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions confirmed=true, which the schema already describes, and says nothing about path.id or the nested body fields s3_key, file_name, file_size, and content_type.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Register uploaded file' and 'record the file on the prospect.' It also distinguishes this step from its sibling upload-URL tool by explicitly framing it as 'Step two: after the PUT succeeds.'

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 clear usage context: call this only after the PUT succeeds, and require user approval plus confirmed=true. It does not explicitly name the upload_url sibling or list when not to use it, but the sequencing guidance is strong.

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