Get a browser upload link for a big input layer

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description explains why: nothing is created until the person drops a file. It adds behavior beyond the annotations — accepted formats, 100 MB cap, conversion into the project grid, replacement of existing layer content, 'uploaded by user' authored_method, no review step, and wrong-kind rejection at the page.

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 core instruction (get the link, give the person ui_url) is front-loaded and followed by consequences and follow-up steps in a logical order. Slightly long, with the 'building footprints, land-use friction' examples and 'you cannot move file bytes' restating the size rationale, but every sentence carries usable information.

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?

Two required parameters, an output schema, and full annotation coverage — and the description still supplies the operational picture (what the human does, size/format limits, permission requirement, post-call verification via list_inputs). Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the enum-free kind field is already documented, but the description adds meaning: kind selects which layer is replaced, and a file of the wrong kind (polygons on an inflow) is refused. project_id gains only the Editor-access context, which is marginal but useful.

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 (get the browser upload link for a big input layer) and immediately scopes it against the sibling write_input_layer by size threshold. An agent can tell exactly what this returns and when it is the right tool 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?

Explicit routing: use this for layers too big to send with write_input_layer (over about 150 KB), because the agent cannot move file bytes. It also names the follow-up step (call list_inputs) and the prerequisite (Editor access), leaving nothing to inference.

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