trigger_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds. It discloses that this is a write operation, explains the authorization requirement, and details failure and timeout return shapes, including the critical warning to check 'status' rather than assuming a returned result means success.

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 organized with a front-loaded purpose, a clear write-access note, and an Args section. Every sentence adds operational value—access restrictions, wait semantics, failure representation, and timeout behavior—with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it covers required and optional arguments, permission prerequisites, result semantics, and edge cases like failure and timeout. Even though an output schema exists, the description still provides the key behavioral information needed, making it contextually 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate for the bare input schema. It explains upload_id as 'the upload to run' and gives rich semantics for wait: blocking behavior, 120s cap, failure/timeout result formats, and the caution not to assume success. Both parameters are meaningfully described.

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 opens with 'Trigger an upload run,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trigger_pipeline and trigger_transformation by naming uploads as the target, so an agent can select it correctly without inspecting other schemas.

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 gives clear access context: it is a write tool that requires write permission, and read-only sessions refuse it. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus sibling trigger tools, leaving that differentiation mostly to the name and first sentence.

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