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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the hard prerequisite that the caller must have network egress to Supabase, the raw-bytes PUT mechanism, and the auto-hiding behavior for known chat clients. Consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. It stops short of covering auth/permission requirements or error/return details, so not a 5.

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, all high-signal: purpose and mechanism first, scoping constraint second, alternative routing last. No filler, no restatement 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 create-flow tool with 9 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential judgment an agent needs—whether the client environment can egress to Supabase and which sibling to use. It doesn't spell out the return payload beyond the signed URL or error cases, but the critical guidance 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 only 44%, so the description should compensate, but it never explains individual parameters like file_name, file_size, content_type, folder, workspace_id, or idempotency_key. The flow context helps infer those roles, yet the burden mostly remains on the schema; a middle score is right.

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 verb+resource: 'Create a signed upload URL and media record' for shell-capable clients that PUT raw bytes to the returned Supabase URL. It also names the sibling it is not (aidelly_upload_media), so an agent can distinguish them without inspecting schemas.

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 use (shell-capable clients like Claude Code or a local CLI), when NOT to use (browser-sandboxed chat clients such as ChatGPT or Claude.ai), names the exact alternative (aidelly_upload_media), and explains the failure mechanism (sandboxes block network egress to Supabase storage).

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