get_signed_url_deprecated

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only addition is the 'Deprecated' marker, which is a genuinely useful signal, but it omits the replacement path, expiry behavior of the signed URL, or any auth requirements.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy: every meaningful word is already in the tool name. There is no front-loaded explanation of what the caller receives.

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?

Six parameters, a required agent_id, environment/branch/version resolution, and a conversation-id side effect ('cannot be used again') go entirely unexplained, and there is no output schema to compensate. For a deprecated endpoint whose semantics an agent cannot infer, this is inadequate.

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 100% across all six parameters, so the schema fully documents agent_id, branch_id, version_id, environment, debug_events_request, and include_conversation_id. The description adds nothing further about these parameters, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim ("Get Signed Url Deprecated upstream") without saying what resource a signed URL is produced for or what 'upstream' means. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_conversation_signed_link, get_knowledge_base_source_file_url, or get_single_use_token. This is tautology rather than purpose.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which alternative signed-URL/token tool to prefer. The word 'Deprecated' hints an agent should look elsewhere, but the description never names the replacement or the condition that selects this tool.

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