create_web_packages

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations. It discloses that success only means the job started, that background workers fetch and re-host archives, that states can become PROCESSING or ERROR later, that there is no deduplication, and that each item triggers real egress with tighter rate limits. It also states the required OAuth scope. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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 long but dense: every sentence adds a distinct, important behavior or constraint. Key warnings are front-loaded (async, success semantics, no dedup), and the structure moves from action to workflow to cautions to auth. There is no filler.

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 complex asynchronous batch operation, the description covers the workflow, failure modes, polling guidance, no-dedup behavior, rate limiting, and authentication requirements. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the item structure: each entry needs content_url as an https:// archive URL and a title of 1 to 500 characters. This is essential call-shaping information that the schema alone does not provide.

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 action and resource: 'Upload web packages from URLs.' It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling create tools by naming the resource type, and it clarifies the asynchronous nature of the operation. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 strong usage context: it tells the agent to poll get_web_package until READY or ERROR, to submit in small batches, and warns about rate limits. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or say 'use this instead of X', but the web-packages resource is unique among siblings, so the absence is minor.

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