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

The annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, so the description's job is to add nuance. It does: upload does not send invitations and returns a document ID, and rename is only allowed before an assignment exists. This meaningfully discloses side-effect boundaries without contradicting the annotations.

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 three short sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core purpose, summarizes both action variants, and ends with next-step guidance, making every sentence informative.

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 with two distinct action branches, the description covers the workflow context, the return value for upload, and the timing restriction for rename. The schema covers remaining parameter details like 25 MiB limit and normalization, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the correct action.

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%, with each branch's parameters described in the input schema. The description maps the high-level actions to their key inputs (PDF bytes for upload, document name for rename), but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Prepare') and resource ('PDF') and explicitly outlines the two supported actions: upload and rename. It also orients the agent in the workflow by mentioning subsequent tools like request_signatures, making it clearly distinct as a preparatory step.

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 states the tool is used 'before requesting signatures,' which establishes its position in the workflow. It also differentiates the rename action by noting it only applies 'before an assignment exists,' and directs the agent to continue with find_documents and request_signatures, providing practical routing guidance.

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