build_upload_files_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the HTTP method and path, saying nothing about authentication scope, side effects, idempotency, or what the created resource represents. A pointer to an external OpenAPI schema is not behavioral transparency for the agent at call time.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the path is duplicated in parentheses ('POST /v1/buildUploadFiles (POST /v1/buildUploadFiles)') — pure redundancy that wastes the one sentence available.

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 mutating, nested-body tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves almost everything unspecified: no auth context, no return shape, no relationship to build uploads, and the body shape is delegated to an external spec the agent may not have. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 100% and the single body parameter already documents its shape via components.schemas.BuildUploadFileCreateRequest, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description merely repeats the schema pointer and adds no envelope details, required fields, or JSON:API attribute semantics of its own.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name and HTTP verb: 'POST /v1/buildUploadFiles' says only that this posts to the buildUploadFiles endpoint, with no plain-language statement of what a build upload file is or what creating one accomplishes. Against hundreds of siblings including background_asset_upload_files_create_instance and build_uploads_create_instance, the agent gets no differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing of any kind. The description does not mention prerequisites, ordering relative to build_uploads_create_instance, or any sibling that overlaps.

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