Confirm Upload

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive; the description adds real behavioral detail on top: the server verifies the object in S3, the exact return shape, and the 400 failure condition. It does not say what happens on repeat confirmation, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the return contract and the failure mode. Every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the returned { url, filename, mimeType, size } and explaining that url is the /s/ path usable as a File/Image field value. Combined with the 400 error case, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, so both s3Key and workspaceId are already documented in the schema, including the workspaceId env/stateless fallback. The description adds no extra syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (confirm) plus resource (a presigned upload) and the precise precondition (the PUT to uploadUrl succeeded). It is clearly distinguishable from request_upload_url and upload_file among the siblings.

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 states the exact moment to call it ('after the PUT to uploadUrl succeeded') and warns to ensure the PUT completed first. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling upload_file path, so it stops just short of naming alternatives.

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