Upload Wiki file part

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: base64 data is decoded and shipped as raw application/octet-stream, and parts are constrained to 5-16 MB except the last. It also discloses the return (the session).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and pipeline stage, followed by encoding detail and size rules. No filler; every sentence carries operational information.

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 3-param upload step with no output schema, the description covers the action, the byte encoding, the size constraints, the single-part shortcut, and how to observe results via uploadsessions_get. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it by explaining part sizing (5-16 MB except last) tied to part_number and the decoding applied to data. That is real added meaning over the field 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Upload one file part") and situates it precisely as "step 2 of the upload pipeline," which distinguishes it from session creation, finishing, and status tools. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context on when to call it (during an open session, step 2), notes a small file fits in a single part_number=1 call, and points to uploadsessions_get for status polling. It doesn't explicitly state the predecessor (uploadsessions_create) or the follow-on finish step as required, so it's strong but not fully prescriptive.

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