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

Annotations provide no safety hints beyond all-false values, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, prerequisites, state transitions, or idempotency behavior. The word 'complete' implies some state change, but it is left unnamed.

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?

The description is a single terse line, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness. It only echoes the endpoint and provides no added information that 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 4-parameter mutation-style operation with a nested body and an output schema, this description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine when to call it, what the request body means, or what effect it has on the referenced media.

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?

workspaceId and idempotencyKey have schema descriptions, but body properties (etag, width, height, duration) and path.id do not. The description adds no parameter meaning and does not clarify what these fields represent or how they are used in the completion flow.

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 is only the HTTP method and URL, restating the tool name. It identifies the resource but not what 'complete' means—no verb with semantic content. It fails to distinguish from post_media or other siblings beyond path.

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?

The description gives no statement of when to use this tool, what scenarios call for it, or alternatives. The endpoint path hints at finishing a media upload, but that is never stated and no comparison is made to post_media, delete_media_id, or get_media.

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