Create an upload

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

Annotations declare a non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns an import_id plus a PUT URL, the conversion starts automatically the moment bytes arrive, and the result is collected via a separate convert call that blocks until the file lands. That is meaningful workflow context not available in the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core decision rule before the mechanics, and the return/completion workflow is packed efficiently into two sentences. The opening 'Get somewhere to put a local file' is slightly informal but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return shape (import_id + PUT URL) and the required follow-up call, which is the key information an agent needs. A brief note on upload lifetime or size limits would close the remaining gap.

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% and each of the three parameters is already documented in the schema. The description restates output_format's role ('what the file should become') and reinforces the auto-start behavior, but adds no syntax, format list, or constraint detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource (create an upload destination for a local file) and immediately delineates scope: 'the right choice for ANY file that is not already at a URL.' An agent can distinguish this from the URL-based path without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a decisive when-to-use rule ('any file not already at a URL, whatever its size') and a follow-up workflow step ('call convert with the import_id to collect the result'). It does not name the specific sibling tool used for the already-at-a-URL case, so routing to that alternative is left implicit.

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