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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description earns real credit by disclosing that encryption is client-side, that the operator must share a retrieval code before logs are readable, and that this tool expects an already-prepared bundle. It does not mention size limits, upload failure behavior, or what the call returns, which keeps it short of 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?

Four sentences, each load-bearing: purpose first, encryption constraint second, trigger condition third, preferred CLI path and scope restriction last. No filler and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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?

Covers purpose, trigger, encryption semantics, and routing guidance for a 7-parameter nested-object tool with no output schema. The only omission is what happens after upload (bundle ID, confirmation, or subsequent retrieval step), which an agent-driven flow would benefit from knowing.

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 every parameter (kernelId, encrypted plus its nested ciphertext/iv/tag/salt fields, bundleHash, bundleSize, collectedAt, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The description references the node and encryption concept but adds no format, unit, or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Upload an encrypted diagnostic bundle') plus the triggering condition ('when the operator's node has problems'). This distinguishes it from near-neighbors like archive_encrypted_bundle and pcc_capture_upload without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('operator reports errors, crashes, or misbehavior'), an explicit preferred alternative ('the pcc-node CLI runs `pcc-node logs --send` locally... prefer that path when available'), and an explicit when-not ('agent-driven uploads when the bundle is already prepared'). This is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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