complete_upload

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

Description explains server verifies blob, computes content hash, transitions state from pending to active, increments tenant usage, idempotency, and error condition. Annotations only indicate not read-only, so description adds substantial behavioral context.

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?

Four concise sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, steps, idempotency, error handling. No wasted words, front-loaded with main action.

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema), description covers purpose, behavior, state transitions, error case, and retry guidance. Agent can confidently invoke and handle responses.

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?

Single parameter artifact_id has 0% schema description coverage. Description uses artifact_id in error message but does not explain its origin (e.g., from request_upload_url) or nuance. Schema pattern provides format, but description adds minimal semantic value beyond context.

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?

Description states the tool 'Finalize an artifact previously reserved via request_upload_url after the bytes have been PUT to the presigned URL'. It clearly identifies the verb (finalize), resource (artifact), and prerequisite step, distinguishing it from the sibling tool request_upload_url.

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 (after PUT) and when not (before PUT completes, returns upload_not_found; wait and retry). Also mentions idempotency on already-active artifacts. Lacks direct comparison to store_artifact but still gives clear context.

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