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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It discloses the stateful behavior clearly: chunks accumulate in order, and only the final chunk (is_last=true) assembles and publishes the file. It does not describe failure modes (e.g., out-of-order chunks or abandoned partial uploads) or auth requirements beyond the schema's agent ownership note, but the core behavioral contract is visible.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the purpose and selection condition before the essential workflow detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 8 parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description covers the core chunked-upload workflow and ties it to the deploy_site sibling. The main gap is that it does not indicate what the tool returns or whether is_last produces a publish confirmation, but this is a minor omission for an otherwise well-specified stateful operation.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds relational meaning beyond individual parameter descriptions: it explains that chunk_index order matters ('Chunks are appended in order') and that is_last is the publication trigger. This cross-parameter semantics is genuinely useful and not directly inferable from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Upload'), resource ('one chunk of a large file to an already-deployed agent site'), and names the sibling deploy_site as the alternative for files that fit in a single call. An agent can clearly tell what this tool is for without opening the 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?

Explicitly provides the decision context: use this tool when files 'don't fit in a single deploy_site call', referencing the sibling directly. It also encodes the workflow rule — chunks are appended in order, with is_last triggering publication — so an agent knows exactly how to complete the operation.

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