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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: storage validates the real size, the file is marked as ready, and usage is counted. Since readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, this extra detail meaningfully characterizes side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action, sequence, and side effects are in the first sentence, and bulk support is a separate brief note. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple confirmation tool, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite step, side effects, and bulk option. It does not mention account handling or error conditions, but this is not critical for basic tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter understanding. It explains that file_ids enables bulk execution, but it does not clarify the account parameter or the relationship/behavior between file_id and file_ids. This is only partial compensation.

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 ('Confirma o upload') and identifies the exact context: after the PUT to upload_url. It also explains the resulting state changes (marks ready, counts usage), which clearly differentiates it from sibling upload-related tools like crm_upload_file or crm_upload_from_url.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: after performing the PUT to upload_url. It also notes bulk support via file_ids for batched execution. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, though the sequencing with sibling tools is strongly implied.

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