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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real burden here. It discloses the 24h token lifetime, that new tickets renew the token family without revoking in-flight uploads, and the revoke path. Missing only details like rate limits or token scope boundaries, but the key behavioral traits are well covered.

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?

Tight, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then ticket semantics, then lifecycle routing to revoke_upload_tickets and the API mirror. 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?

For a single-param creation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it produces, ticket lifetime, batch reuse, and the companion revoke tool. Adequate and well-rounded; would need only minor additions like auth requirements to reach the top tier.

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% and the single folder_id param is fully documented in the schema, including the Folder-Id header re-send requirement. The description adds no param detail but the schema does the work; slightly above baseline for the header hint being surfaced in the schema.

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+resource ('Start a media upload: mints an upload ticket') and specifies the concrete artifact produced (TUS endpoint + 24h bearer token). Distinguishes clearly from siblings and cites the mirrored API endpoint.

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 guidance: use any TUS 1.0.0 client, reuse one ticket for a batch when practical, and calls out revoke_upload_tickets for immediate invalidation. The token-family renewal behavior when creating new tickets is clearly stated, which routes the agent appropriately.

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