Get asset upload URL

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false; the description adds the critical non-obvious behavior that this tool does NOT upload the file - the caller must PUT the bytes to the returned uploadUrl - plus the exact return shape { uploadUrl, fileUrl }. Still missing is signed-URL expiry or size/type limits, which matter for a URL-minting tool.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause, then compactly covers body shape, return values, and next step in one tight pass. No filler sentences and no repeated schema content beyond a useful reminder of the call shape.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and how to consume it, which is the key gap a missing output schema would otherwise leave. The remaining omission is operational context such as URL expiration or accepted file size constraints.

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 75% and the schema already documents fileType, projectId and contentType, so the description's inline '{ fileName, fileType?, contentType?, projectId? }' mostly restates the schema's required/optional shape. It adds no format, constraint, or default detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get a signed upload URL for a local file') and immediately ties it to its downstream consumer, autonomous_edit's video_url parameter. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_assets or delete_asset without reading any 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 an explicit three-step workflow (call this, PUT bytes to uploadUrl, then pass fileUrl to autonomous_edit) and explains the motivating condition: avoiding external hosting of video/image/audio. It does not name an explicit exclusion or a competing alternative, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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