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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context that this creates a signed address for direct upload rather than uploading content itself, and that registration is required afterward. It does not disclose URL expiry, permission requirements, or failure modes, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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: the first states the purpose, the second states the required follow-up action. The information is front-loaded and every word 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?

The description explains the two-step workflow and names the follow-up sibling, which is helpful. However, there is no output schema and no mention of the response shape, upload method, or parameter roles, so the agent must infer several important details from the schema alone.

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%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. The purpose statement weakly implies fileName, mimeType, and bucketId relate to the upload, but it does not explain required accountId, objectPath, or idempotencyKey. With six parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 specific verb (oluşturur), the resource (imzalı adres for XPlanner storage), and the direct-upload purpose. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling xplanner_register_media_asset by explaining that registration happens after upload, so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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 explicitly gives the workflow: create the signed address, upload the file, then call xplanner_register_media_asset. This is clear contextual guidance and names the relevant sibling, making the tool's role in the process unambiguous.

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