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

The description discloses a non-obvious two-step behavior: this tool only creates the URL; the caller must separately upload and then complete the import. This goes beyond the minimal annotation set, which only says readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. It does not mention expiration or side effects, but the core workflow is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation, the second lists supported formats, and the third explains the required follow-up. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description still makes clear that a URL is returned for uploading and that a completion step is required. It could name the exact complete-import sibling tool or describe the response shape, but the essential context for invocation and next steps is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents process_id, file_name, content_type, and extra_capture_request_id. The description reinforces the supported file types but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema 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 clearly states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Create a signed upload URL for importing a Miro export into a Clarity v2 process.' It names the supported formats and, by focusing on Miro artifacts, is distinguishable from sibling tools like createClarityDocumentUploadUrl and createClarityImageUploadUrl.

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 gives clear workflow context: the caller must upload the file to the returned URL and then complete the import. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the Miro/Clarity-v2 framing is specific enough to guide selection.

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