upload_asset_finish

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, and it does cover the main actions and return value. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as irreversibility, failure behavior when chunks are missing or integrity check fails, and whether the operation can be called multiple times. The description adds value beyond the name but lacks depth.

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-loaded with the purpose, and every phrase earns its place. It describes what it does, how, and what is returned without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core aspects: purpose, process, and return value. It lacks explicit error/prerequisite details, but for a finalize step in a well-known flow it is sufficiently complete.

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 description already covers the single parameter ('Upload ID returned by upload_asset_begin'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or usage, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Finalize' and identifies the precise resource ('chunked asset upload'). It explains the process (reassembles chunks, verifies integrity, uploads to brand library) and return value (asset ID and URL), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_asset_begin, upload_asset_chunk, and upload_asset_abort.

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 description clearly implies this is the final step in a chunked upload flow, referencing 'buffered chunks' and the upload ID from upload_asset_begin. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites or conditions like 'after all chunks are uploaded' or exclusions (e.g., 'not for non-chunked uploads'), leaving some room for ambiguity.

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