Create File Upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it does not transfer bytes itself, it returns PUT instructions and an authenticated browser handoff. It does not say whether a record is reserved, whether the upload expires, or how idempotency_key changes repeated calls.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the return behavior; no filler. Given four target variants and a required idempotency key, the brevity is on the edge of under-specification rather than waste.

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 complex upload-initiator with a nested oneOf, a replacement_confirmation const requiring user authorization, and no output schema, two sentences are thin. The description never explains the replacement/confirmation path, upload expiry, or what identifier the PUT instructions carry, all of which an agent needs before calling.

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% and the schema has nested objects, so the description must carry the load. It usefully enumerates the four target kinds, but says nothing about the `file` object (content_type, checksum, 500MB cap) or the required idempotency_key, leaving the highest-risk parameter undocumented in both places.

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 names a specific verb ('Prepare') and resource ('email attachment, contract or draft/final upload'), and the enumerated upload kinds map to the four target variants, distinguishing it from get_file_upload and complete_file_upload. 'Actor-bound' is unexplained jargon, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Prepare ... Return direct PUT instructions' signals this is the first step of a multi-step flow, but no sibling is named and there is no statement that complete_file_upload is the follow-up or when to cancel instead. An agent can infer the sequence from the sibling list, but the description does not do the routing.

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