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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: sharded uploads are analyzed against the first shard only, schema mismatch fails later with a specific error, gzip is detected from bytes and self-healed, typed 422 and 409 FILE_NOT_YET_UPLOADED errors are returned, the upload is staged with hitl:true, and discovery scope is required. These details materially help the agent understand state transitions and error handling.

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 dense but well organized and front-loaded: it starts with the trigger condition, then covers shard behavior, return shape, errors, workflow state, next steps, and required scope. Every sentence contributes operational information for a complex workflow tool.

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 the tool participates in a staged upload-to-confirmation workflow, the description covers the necessary preconditions, expected return structure, error conditions, and sequencing with sibling tools. Although an output schema exists and return details are not strictly required, the added context makes the definition complete for correct 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 coverage is 100%, and the only parameter segment_id is already documented in the schema as the matched segment returned by create_segment(subtype=matched). The description references the same origin but adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific action (run LLM-assisted column mapping inference) on a specific resource (an uploaded matched-segment file), and ties it directly to the create_segment(subtype=matched) upload flow. It also clearly distinguishes this analysis step from confirm_column_mappings, cancel_matched_upload, and wait_for_segment.

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 says when to call this: after uploading to the presigned URL(s) from create_segment(subtype=matched). It also states the next steps in order, including presenting results to the user, waiting, then calling confirm_column_mappings or cancel_matched_upload, and explicitly warns not to call wait_for_segment before confirm_column_mappings succeeds.

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