evite_upload_slots

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the details those annotations cannot: links expire after 30 minutes, one slot per file, the PUT must carry the exact Content-Type, and a curl command is returned. 'Changes nothing on Evite' reinforces the read-only contract with concrete consequence rather than repeating the flag.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose, return shape and procedure, expiry, then the environment exception. The verb and resource are front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the returned structure (uploadUrl, curl command, blobKey), the time limit on validity, and the environment where the tool does not exist. Everything an agent needs to invoke it and chain to the next call is present.

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 filename and mimetype are already documented, but the description adds the slot-per-file mapping between the files array and the returned uploadUrl/blobKey pairs, which the schema cannot express. The Content-Type linkage is largely a restatement of the schema's own wording, keeping this below a 5.

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 upload links for photos to add to an Evite event album — and immediately distinguishes itself from evite_upload_photo by naming the connector constraint. An agent knows exactly what this produces: one slot per file with a PUT target.

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?

Explicitly covers when to use it (hosted connector that cannot read local files) and when not to (local install — pass path or inline to evite_upload_photo instead). It also prescribes the follow-up call to evite_upload_photo with blob_key, so the routing decision and the next step are both spelled out.

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