mirelo_create_asset_upload_slot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (slot creation, file upload) and mentions that file_path must resolve to a readable file. However, it does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or what happens on invalid inputs.

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?

Two concise sentences clearly front-load the core action and optional behavior. No filler or redundant 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, required parameter, optional behavior, and return value (asset_id and upload_url). No output schema exists, but the return is explicitly stated. For a simple tool with two parameters, this is complete enough.

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% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds useful context: file_path is optional and triggers immediate upload, and it must resolve to a readable file. This adds validation meaning beyond the schema's 'Optional path' description.

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 clearly states the tool creates an upload slot via POST /v2/assets, returns an asset_id and presigned upload_url, and optionally uploads a local file. It specifies the required content_type and optional file_path, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on audio processing.

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 explains when to use the tool (to create an upload slot for a given content_type) and the optional file upload behavior. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are needed since no sibling tool serves the same purpose.

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