Complete chunked media upload

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

The description discloses substantial behavior beyond the sparse annotations: server-side assembly, verification of existence, size, magic bytes and storage quota, recording the media file, and automatic abort on failed assembly. This gives the agent a realistic picture of side effects and failure modes.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the action, and each clause adds meaningful information: process, verification, response similarity, failure behavior, and invocation condition. There is no filler.

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 complex 9-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, verification, and side effects. The only mild gap is that 'same verification and response shape as finalize_media_upload' defers detail to another tool's definition, but the behavior described is otherwise self-sufficient.

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 the schema already documents all parameters and their meanings. The description adds little beyond the schema, except implicitly reinforcing that parts carry ETags collected from PUT requests.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Complete a chunked upload' and explains the assembly, verification, and media-file recording process. It also references finalize_media_upload, which helps position this tool relative to a closely related sibling.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when all parts of a chunked upload are PUT and their ETags collected,' giving a clear condition for invocation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a non-chunked alternative, but the guidance is sufficient for typical routing.

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