await_upload

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

Despite annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: polling mechanism, timeout behavior, resumability across transport resets, and the three possible statuses. This goes far beyond the annotation and gives the agent a precise mental model.

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 structured with a brief intro, a parameter instruction, and a bulleted list of status outcomes. Every sentence is purposeful, no filler, and formatting aids quick comprehension.

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?

Despite having an output schema (true), the description goes beyond it by explaining the full workflow: when to call, what to pass, what each status means, and how to handle pending/expired cases. It is complete for a polling tool with this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so by explaining upload_link (from source_add return) and timeout indirectly ('after ~timeout s'). The default value is in the schema, so no issue. This is solid compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Wait for a file uploaded via a source_add(source_type="file") link to land.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like source_add or source_wait by focusing on the file-upload link wait workflow.

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 provides clear context: pass the human_upload.url from source_add, re-invoke on pending, and mint a fresh link on expired_or_invalid. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like source_wait, but the usage context is well-defined.

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