Create Upload URL

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the detail that the URL is 'short-lived', providing temporal context. However, it does not explain what destructive effects occur (e.g., resource allocation) or authentication requirements. Given annotations cover some behavioral aspects, the description adds marginal value.

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 a single 18-word sentence with no extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, given the tool's complexity, a slightly expanded description could provide needed context without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal and does not explain the lifecycle of the upload URL (e.g., expiration), how to use it, or its relation to sibling tools like 'glitch_upload_file'. Given the moderate complexity, the description is notably incomplete.

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 only 40% (title_id and agent_run_id have descriptions). The main description does not explain the purpose or constraints of parameters like file_name, mime_type, or size_bytes, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Users may not understand the required format or role of each parameter.

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 verb ('Create'), resource ('short-lived upload URL'), and context ('attaching a file to a Glitch Agent title or run'). It differentiates from the sibling tool 'glitch_upload_file' by focusing on URL generation rather than the actual upload.

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 implies usage for attaching files, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'glitch_upload_file', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is clear but incomplete.

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