Request Upload URL

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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: file size limit (500MB), upload URL expiration (~1 hour), Content-Type matching requirement with specific 403 error from S3, and the full flow including confirm_upload dependency. Adds significant context not present in annotations.

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 concise and packed with information in a single paragraph. The numbering of steps aids clarity. Slightly dense but no wasted words; could be improved by breaking into bullet points but not necessary.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, flow with subsequent steps, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the entire upload process, expiry, and dependencies. No gaps identified.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds marginal value by framing the purpose of module and contentType in the flow, but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'request upload URL' explicitly states the tool's function. Distinguishes itself from sibling 'upload_file' by stating this is the default path and upload_file is a fallback, providing clear differentiation.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'DEFAULT upload path for every file' and when to use alternative: 'upload_file is only the fallback if this flow fails.' Also gives a step-by-step flow. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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