evidence_group_evidence_upload_url_create

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

Annotations do not provide meaningful safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds context beyond annotations by framing this as step 2 of a flow, requiring PUT to the returned URL, and noting the URL may expire ('fresh' URL, 'expired or was lost'). It also discloses that evidence_create_sealed covers this automatically. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when-to-use, requirements, and alternative. The information is front-loaded and free of fluff. The description is highly compact while packing flow context, usage guidance, and a cross-reference to an alternative tool.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description implicitly states the return value by saying 'PUT the file bytes to the returned URL.' It also covers the flow context, prerequisites, and alternative. It does not go into URL expiry details or invalidation of previous URLs, but 'fresh' implies this. For a focused URL-generation tool, this is sufficiently 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 75%, with the three UUID parameters having rich descriptions ('Obtain from...'). The description repeats these three as 'Requires: caseFileId + evidenceGroupId + evidenceId' but omits the nested requestModel object and its required fileName. Since the schema itself already documents the UUIDs well, the description adds little new semantic value and leaves the requestModel parameter unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a fresh presigned upload URL for an ALREADY-REGISTERED evidence in a group'. It clearly differentiates from siblings by specifying step 2 of the register-then-upload flow, noting that evidence_create_sealed automates the whole flow. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the URL from evidence_group_evidence_register expired or was lost.' It also mentions an alternative: 'evidence_create_sealed does all of this automatically,' which effectively tells the agent when not to use this tool and choose a higher-level wrapper instead.

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