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

With all annotation hints set to false, the description carries the burden and adds meaningful behavioral context: it quarantines the object, queues validation, and prevents usability until validation passes. It does not cover failure behavior or idempotency, but it discloses the main side effects well beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the consequence follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core workflow and the validation gate. It lacks details on how to track validation completion or handle checksum mismatches, but it is reasonably complete for this complexity.

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 both parameters (uploadId and checksum) are already documented with descriptions and a format pattern. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific multi-step action—verify (size + checksum), quarantine, and queue validation—with a clear resource (an uploaded object). It is functionally distinct from upload_create and other siblings, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool finalizes an existing upload and gates the asset until validation passes. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond what the schema notes about uploadId originating from upload_create.

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