Request Upload URL

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent/openWorld flags; the description adds critical behavior beyond them — the URL expires in ~1 hour, the PUT requires Content-Type to exactly match contentType or S3 returns 403, and the returned s3Key must be passed to confirm_upload. This is rich operational context not present in structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the key routing decision (default vs fallback) and then enumerates the flow compactly. It is dense and slightly crammed with clauses, but every sentence contributes necessary operational 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?

For a multi-step upload tool with no output schema, the description supplies the complete flow, expiry caveat, error condition, and how to use the result (s3Key path for submit_activity). An agent has everything needed to execute the full sequence without further documentation.

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%, so each parameter (module, fileName, fileSize, contentType, workspaceId) is already documented in the schema. The description reiterates the 500MB limit and contentType matching but adds no syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific action (request an upload URL) and explicitly establishes it as the DEFAULT upload path, distinguishing it from the fallback sibling upload_file. The multi-step flow makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('DEFAULT upload path for every file up to 500MB') and when to use the alternative ('upload_file is only the fallback if this flow fails'). It also gives the exact sequence of follow-up calls (confirm_upload, submit_activity), leaving no routing ambiguity.

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