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

Well beyond the annotations, which only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the operational constraints an agent cannot infer: the link lasts 15 minutes, works once, is bound to this draft, is capped at 10 MB, and the file is transferred byte-for-byte so encoding is preserved. It also names the return fields, which is important since no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then the primary usage flow, then the fallback path, then the return payload. Despite being multi-sentence, every clause carries actionable information (expiry, single-use, draft binding, size cap, encoding, return fields) with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (upload_url, upload_id, expires_in_seconds, curl_example). Combined with the documented 15-minute expiry, size limit and the upload_sie(draft_id, upload_id) handoff, an agent has everything needed to complete the multi-step upload 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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains draft_id, its provenance (list_drafts) and the ownership requirement. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas 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 ('Skapar en tillfällig uppladdningslänk för en SIE-fil') plus the precise scope: files too large to send in a tool call. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling upload_sie, which is named as the follow-up reader, so an agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('när du har tillgång till filen lokalt, t.ex. i Claude Code eller Cursor'), names the exact command source (curl_example), and specifies the fallback when the environment cannot reach upload_url (Claude.ai sandbox network block), including the manual drag-and-drop alternative and the verification step read_draft(overview) / sie_file_name. Both the happy path and the exclusion case are covered.

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