await_upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true / destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: in-process polling, resumable waits that survive a transport reset, a ~timeout bound, and the full status vocabulary with remediation for each state.

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-loaded with the core action and input, then a compact bulleted status table where each entry earns its place. It is slightly long, but the bulleted handling of each status prevents the length from becoming noise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still maps each status to an agent action. Combined with the read-only annotations and the pending/retry semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and recover from this tool.

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 carry both parameters. It thoroughly explains upload_link (source, accepted forms), but only alludes to timeout as '~timeout s' without stating units or the default of 45. Good but not full compensation.

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 specific verb and resource ('Wait for a file uploaded... to land') and ties it to a precise workflow ('source_add(source_type="file")'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like source_add, source_wait and source_list because it names the link/token flow that produces its input.

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?

It tells the agent exactly what to pass (the human_upload.url or bare token from source_add) and prescribes per-outcome actions: re-invoke with the same link on pending, check source_list on unconfirmed, and mint a fresh link via source_add on expired.

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