Finalize upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the asset is submitted for processing and review, implying a side effect, but it omits important details such as the irrevocable attestation requirement, the public CC0 dedication, or any potential for rejection. It gives some transparency but lacks comprehensive disclosure.

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 concise sentence that flows well, leading with the prerequisite and then stating the action. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no redundant words or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters with 5 required, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not mention mandatory fields such as attestation (a legal requirement), category, or quarantineKey, nor does it explain the submission workflow beyond the basic step. An agent would need to inspect the schema deeply and may still miss critical context like the irrevocable nature of the dedication.

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?

The schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds no extra parameter information. It only says 'describe the asset,' which loosely maps to summary and description fields but does not clarify required fields like attestation, category, or quarantineKey. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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's action: finalizing an upload after the file has been PUT to the URL from get_upload_url. It specifies the sequence (after PUT) and the outcome (describe asset and submit for processing and review), which is specific and distinguishes it from other upload-related 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 provides a clear precondition (after PUTing to the URL from get_upload_url), giving some guidance on when to use it. However, it does not mention alternative tools like submit_asset_from_url or when to choose one over the other, leaving usage decisions partly to inference.

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