Report File Transfer Event

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds two things they do not: an authorization precondition (must own the active lease) and the fact that the event is published without emitting terminal output. It does not warn that non-idempotent repeats may duplicate events, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint precedes the clarifying negative clause, so the agent reads the essential restriction first.

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?

With an output schema present, a fully described 6-param schema, and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values. It is nearly complete, missing only failure behavior when the lease is stale or already released.

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 all six parameters including the type enum and nested metadata are documented in the schema. The description adds only the owner/transfer_id linkage ('caller-owned active lease'), so the 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 verb+resource ('Publish a file-transfer status event') and narrows scope to 'the caller-owned active file-transfer lease'. The clause 'without writing terminal output' implicitly separates it from terminal_write / terminal_write_leased, though no sibling is named outright.

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 precondition 'caller-owned active file-transfer lease' implies this is only callable mid-transfer, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. terminal_file_transfer_checkpoint, terminal_wait_file_transfer).

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