get_upload_link

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about returning a signed URL and restricting uploads to certain archive formats, but it does not disclose behaviors like URL expiration, permissions, or whether the folder must already exist. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not exceptionally transparent.

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 short paragraphs with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second paragraph provides necessary compression and format details. Every sentence 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation details: what to compress, how to structure the archive, where to upload it, and allowed formats. It omits optional details like URL expiration or folder existence checks, but it is complete enough for a competent agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'storage folder with the case name' maps storage_folder to a case-named folder, and the accepted zip/tar.gz/7z/rar/xz formats clarify what filename should contain. This adds meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a signed URL to upload one file into a storage folder (remote clients).' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like upload_folder and get_download_link by emphasizing the signed-URL and remote-client angle, so an agent can identify the tool's core purpose immediately.

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 concrete usage context: for a case folder, compress the folder contents without a wrapping folder, use an accepted archive format, and upload into a storage folder named after the case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the instructions are clear enough for the main intended workflow.

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