complete_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the required state (upload session UPLOADED), the 400 error if precondition fails, and the return format. It does not mention side effects like version creation explicitly, but that is implied.

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 concise, using about 5 sentences with front-loaded purpose. It could be better structured (e.g., list parameters), but overall efficient.

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?

It covers preconditions, typical usage, and return format. However, it could clarify behavior when dataset_id is not provided (e.g., whether a new dataset is created). Given an output schema exists, completeness is adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It explains upload_request_id, dataset_id, and dataset_type, but omits descriptions for project_id, name, and description. This leaves gaps in understanding for required parameters.

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 clearly states the tool finalizes an upload after start_upload and a curl PUT. It specifies the required parameters and the return value, distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_upload and create_dataset_version.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool: after start_upload and the gateway PUT must return HTTP 2xx. It provides a precondition (else 400 error) but does not compare with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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