Upload a new owned release

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

Annotations already signal mutating/destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: exact user form confirmation, byte rechecking, duplicate rejection, 100,000,000-byte limit, no signature/SDK verification, server-controlled publication status, and a no-auto-retry rule. This goes well beyond the structured hints and provides practical operational guidance.

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 dense but every sentence adds meaningful constraint or behavior. It front-loads the core action and then efficiently lists critical rules and caveats without redundant phrasing.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description supplies the missing operational context: file paths, ownership, byte limits, verification behavior, retry policy, and publication control. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly and avoid unsafe assumptions.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies rpm32_path/rpm64_path as absolute-path ARM RPMs, app_id as an existing caller-owned app, and hints at duplicate version/OS constraints, but it does not explain release_notes or explicitly map aurora_versions to Aurora OS version targets. Partial compensation, not complete.

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: uploads ARM RPMs as a new release of an existing caller-owned app. It clearly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'NEW release' and 'existing caller-owned app', so an agent can tell it apart from create_app, update_my_app_version, or prepare_release.

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 implies when to use it: for adding a new release to an existing owned app, with explicit constraints like one/two absolute-path RPMs and server-determined review status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with scheduling, preparing, or updating metadata.

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