Prepare reviewed artifact upload

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive intent. The description adds behavioral details: URL expiry, exact bytes requirement, and the review lifecycle, which go beyond annotations. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences pack key purpose and behavioral constraints without extraneous detail. Every word 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?

Despite 10 parameters, no output schema, and complex behavioral context (review, URL expiry), the description omits what the tool returns, how to use the URL, parameter interactions, and error conditions. It is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 20% (2 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description contributes no parameter-level meaning, leaving 8 undocumented parameters. With such low coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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 creates a five-minute PUT URL for exact bytes, distinguishing it from sibling prepare_artifact_download. The verb 'create' and resource 'PUT URL' are specific, and the mention of external-agent review adds context.

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 explicitly notes that external-agent output always enters pending review and does not replace the current version before approval, providing clear context for when this tool is used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond sibling tools.

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