sw_get_upload_url

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context: the URL is short-lived (~10 min), the accepted formats and 10 MiB limit, that the bytes must not go through the tool call, that the original file needs no shrinking, and the hosted-vs-local and shell-vs-base64 fallbacks. That is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Densely packed but front-loaded: the core purpose and the byte-avoidance mechanism come first, then the fallbacks. Nearly every clause carries actionable information, though the run-on construction is slightly heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return value's usage (the signed URL/curl command and the upload_id to pass downstream) and all the constraints needed to call it correctly. Nothing essential is missing for a 2-param tool.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only indirect context by showing how the result feeds receipt: {upload_id, filename}; it does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: get a short-lived signed upload URL for a receipt file. It also explains the mechanism (curl, without bytes in a tool call) and names the sibling tools that consume the result (sw_attach_receipt, sw_create_expense, sw_update_expense), so an agent can distinguish it from those siblings immediately.

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 says when to use it (hosted server), when not (locally use receipt.path), and gives a concrete alternative for the no-shell case (receipt.base64). The conditions that select each path are stated, not inferred.

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