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

Annotations already say it is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context: the platform does not observe the upload, the old runtime keeps running during an update, and this is the trigger that moves the project out of awaiting_source. It does not discuss error cases or whether idempotency_key protects against re-submission.

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 adding a new fact: what it does, why it is needed, what happens on update, and where blob_key comes from. Front-loaded with the action, then the rationale, then the prerequisite, so it is well-structured and dense.

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 three-param mutation with no output schema and no annotations about side effects beyond flags, the description covers the state transition, the source of blob_key, and the update behavior. Missing: what the response contains and whether idempotency_key is recommended to avoid duplicate analysis.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that blob_key comes from create_project or get_upload_url, which is critical linkage that the schema does not provide. project_id and idempotency_key are not explained, but the flow context makes project_id obvious.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Report that the archive is uploaded and start the analysis'), separating it from sibling tools like get_upload_url and create_project, which is exactly the flow it sits in. The dual mode, first submit vs. update of an already submitted project, is also called out.

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?

'until this call the project stays in awaiting_source' implies when to call it, and naming create_project and get_upload_url as the sources of blob_key gives the agent the ordering needed. It does not explicitly state when not to call it, but the context is clear for this flow.

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