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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the valuable idempotent behavior that if nothing is pending it simply returns the version the artifact ended up in. It does not mention any permission or workspace-auth requirements, which is a minor residual gap.

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 compact sentences, with the strong 'almost never needed' caveat front-loaded and the fallback case clearly appended. No filler, though the deprecation framing precedes the actual action.

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 3-parameter finalize tool with no output schema, the description supplies the pending/legacy context, the idempotent outcome, and the routing against start_artifact_upload. Enough to call it correctly, with only auth/environment prerequisites left implicit.

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 artifact_id, nota and workspace_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 says the tool exists for old uploads that left the file waiting, and that it reports the resulting artifact version, which conveys the finalize-a-pending-upload action. It leans on the title and on referencing the start_artifact_upload sibling rather than stating the verb directly, so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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 explicitly covers when not to use it ('Ya casi nunca hace falta: el PUT de start_artifact_upload deja el artefacto guardado solo') and when it is still needed ('las subidas viejas, que dejaban el archivo esperando'). The alternative behavior is named, so routing is unambiguous.

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