audience.upload.start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add two genuinely useful behavioral facts — pro-only access and possible PII content — which is more than most terse descriptions offer. But it omits whether the operation is async, whether it is idempotent or destructive, what it returns (a job id?), and any rate limits.

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?

Single sentence with no filler and the key constraint (pro-only/PII) front-loaded, which is good. But for a tool with a nested payload object and zero schema documentation, one sentence is under-sized rather than concise.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a nested payload object — yet the description says nothing about the upload lifecycle or how to follow up. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this correctly without guessing at the payload shape.

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 0% with two required parameters, one of which is a nested object. The description names neither segment_id nor payload and gives no format, structure, or size expectations for the payload. The only faint signal is 'may include PII', which hints at payload content but documents nothing.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('start upload job' under 'Audience'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like audience.upload.status and audience.upload.errors. However it never explains that the job targets a segment via segment_id, so the specificity is thin.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the parenthetical pro-only note, and no mention of the obviously related siblings (audience.upload.status, audience.upload.errors) that an agent would need after starting a job. The agent must infer the entire workflow.

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