upload_asset_abort

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the destructive side effect of discarding buffered chunks, which is key behavioral information. However, it does not cover potential edge cases like invalid uploadId or idempotency, but for a simple cancel operation this is sufficient.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and side effects. It could mention the upload workflow context or what happens after abort, but it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for uploadId ('Upload ID returned by upload_asset_begin'). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so the schema already provides the necessary semantics, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool cancels an in-progress chunked asset upload and discards buffered chunks. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upload_asset_finish or upload_asset_chunk.

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 phrase 'in progress' implies the tool is appropriate during an ongoing upload, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., upload_asset_finish) or when not to use it. The context is implied rather than stated.

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