Commit a chunked file write

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context: the upload is consumed regardless of success or failure, and retries from file_write_begin are the recovery path. This goes beyond the annotation flags and helps the agent understand the consequences.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and includes a critical behavioral note about upload consumption and restart, making every word count.

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?

The tool is moderately complex due to the chunked upload workflow, but the description covers the finalization action, the equivalence to file_write, and failure recovery. Output schema exists, so return details are not needed. The main gap is parameter documentation, but overall the picture is reasonably complete.

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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters like mime or expected_version. It implicitly clarifies the role of path (target file name) and upload_id (the upload), but does not add enough detail to fully overcome the schema gaps.

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 clearly states the tool finalizes a chunked upload into an app file, using specific verbs like 'finalize' and 'create or overwrite'. It distinguishes itself from file_write by calling itself the chunked equivalent, which precisely identifies its role among sibling tools.

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 explains this is the chunked counterpart to file_write, implying it is used after chunked upload steps. It also provides a clear 'on failure, restart from file_write_begin' guideline, giving a recovery path. While it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternative tools, the context is strongly implied.

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