build_uploads_create_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a mutation via the POST verb. It says nothing about authentication requirements, side effects, idempotency, or whether the operation is reversible. Pointing at the OpenAPI schema does not disclose behavior.

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 text is short but wastes space on a literal duplication of the endpoint ('POST /v1/buildUploads (POST /v1/buildUploads)'). The remaining content is a schema pointer rather than substantive front-loaded information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested body object, the description should cover at least permissions and return behavior. It supplies none of that, leaving the definition materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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 there is a single body parameter, so the schema already documents the input; baseline is 3. The description's reference to 'components.schemas.BuildUploadCreateRequest' does add a useful pointer for constructing the JSON:API envelope, but no field-level semantics beyond that.

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 restates the endpoint as 'POST /v1/buildUploads', which conveys a create-style write on the buildUploads resource, but it adds no semantic meaning beyond the tool name. It never explains what a build upload is or what the operation accomplishes, so an agent gains little over reading the name. It is minimally adequate rather than tautological.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools (e.g. build_uploads_get_instance, build_upload_files_create_instance) despite a huge sibling set. The agent is left to infer everything about selection from the name alone.

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