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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation; the description adds the useful point that it only prepares and returns bounded metadata rather than persisting an asset. However it says nothing about idempotency behavior or how upload_attempt affects retries, which is the riskiest aspect of a write-ish call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but tips into under-specification for a 7-parameter staging call.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description omits the surrounding workflow (confirm/abandon), idempotency expectations, and any parameter guidance needed to call a 7-param, 0%-documented tool correctly.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing. File hash algorithm, file size units, expected content_type format, upload_attempt semantics, and idempotency_key usage are all undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource ('Prepare a creative upload') and notes that it returns upload metadata rather than performing the upload itself. It does not distinguish itself from the surrounding confirm/abandon siblings, so an agent must infer it is the first step of a multi-step flow.

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 word 'Prepare' implies a staging step, but the description never says to follow up with creatives_confirm_upload or creatives_abandon_upload, nor when to retry. No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance despite many adjacent creative tools.

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