upload_asset_chunk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that chunks are ordered and contiguous, which is important behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error handling, idempotency, or consequences of violating the order requirement. It also doesn't state that a follow-up call to upload_asset_finish is expected.

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?

Two succinct sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and no redundant wording. Every word adds value.

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 simple tool in a multi-step flow, the description covers the essential usage context (prerequisite, ordering) and references the companion tool. It lacks detail on error responses or completion step, but these are arguably handled by sibling tools and the schema is sufficient for parameters.

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 uploadId, index, and fileBase64Chunk with clear descriptions. The tool description reinforces the ordering constraint but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Send one chunk'), the object ('base64-encoded file'), and the prerequisite ('previously started with upload_asset_begin'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing its specific role in the chunked upload sequence.

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 states when to use this tool (after upload_asset_begin) and adds explicit ordering requirements ('in order, index starting at 0, with no gaps'). It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the context makes it clear this is for chunked uploads only.

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