Prepare reviewed artifact upload

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses five-minute expiry, exact bytes, pending review, and no replacement before approval – rich context beyond structured data.

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, front-loaded with the action, each sentence adds new information without redundancy. The format is efficient and easy to parse.

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 description covers the essential behavioral contract (review, expiry, immutability) but does not elaborate on the full workflow, such as how to create new vs version artifacts or the return value. Since no output schema exists, some of this is implied but not explicit.

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 only 20%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond 'exact bytes', which implies sha256/byte_size. It does not explain key parameters like artifact_id, parent_version_id, or review_note, so the low coverage is not compensated.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('five-minute PUT URL'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting the review workflow ('enters pending review', 'never replaces'). This separates it from download and approval 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 states the core use case (creating upload URLs) and specifies the review context for external agents, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions. The sibling set implies the workflow, but no direct 'use X instead' guidance is provided.

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