Run a data processing job, step 1: create job and get upload URL(s)

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

Annotations provide only false hints, so no safety information. The description discloses that it creates a job and returns upload URLs, and that the agent must upload and then call a second tool. It does not describe potential side effects like whether the job is visible in status, what happens on failure, or any resource consumption. It adds some context beyond annotations but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 three concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives the next action, and the third gives a usage condition. It is front-loaded with 'First step' and contains no redundant filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 step-1 tool, the description explains the full workflow: create job, get upload URLs, upload, then call finish_data_job. It also notes the 'beyond the initial sample' condition. There is no output schema, but the description mentions returning upload URLs. It could mention error handling or what happens if the upload fails, but overall it covers the essential context for this stage.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces that specName refers to an 'already-configured data spec' and that fileNames are for the files to process, but adds no new syntax or format details. It also does not elaborate on workspaceId beyond the schema's default mention. With full schema coverage, a score of 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?

The title explicitly labels this as 'step 1: create job and get upload URL(s)' and the description repeats that with a clear verb+resource: 'creates a job and returns upload URL(s)'. It distinguishes from the sibling finish_data_job by stating it is the first step and instructs to call finish_data_job after uploading.

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 sequential guidance: 'Upload, then call finish_data_job' and a condition 'Only for files beyond the initial sample.' It implies alternatives (finish_data_job for the next step) but does not explicitly mention when to use other tools like setup_scheduled_pull or delete_data_spec. It is clear enough for this step-based workflow.

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