upload_complete

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear the full behavioral burden. It only states the final effect (server begins processing) and does not disclose idempotency, side effects of early or repeated calls, failure behavior, or any required preceding steps beyond the schema's project_id hint.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action and its consequence efficiently, earning every word.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the core invocation. However, it lacks explicit sequencing relative to upload_init and any note about expected return or error states, leaving a modest completeness 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% for the sole parameter, so the schema already documents project_id as 'Project ID returned from upload_init'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, keeping this at the baseline for good schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark'), a concrete resource ('a file upload'), and a clear outcome ('so the server can begin processing the uploaded presentation'). This action is naturally distinct from sibling upload_init, which would initiate rather than complete an 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 the tool is called after a file has been uploaded, but it does not explicitly state sequencing, prerequisites, or alternative tools. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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