evidence_temp_file_upload_url_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to state mutation. The description adds context that the file is 'not yet registered as evidence' and that the URL is 'presigned' (implying temporary). However, it does not disclose side effects like URL expiration, whether the upload URL is one-time-use, or what happens after upload. This is a moderate gap given the tool's nature.

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 two well-structured sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides usage alternatives without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and there is zero filler.

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 tool is complex (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), yet the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., the presigned URL format or how to use it for upload). It also omits any mention of required prerequisites beyond the schema descriptions. The description covers the staging context but is incomplete for a developer to successfully invoke and process the result.

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 only 30%, with only caseFileId, evidenceId, and evidenceGroupId having descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain the remaining parameters (title, fileName, metadata, testimony, requiredTestimonyProviders, etc.) beyond the overall staging purpose. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Creates a presigned upload URL for a TEMPORARY file not yet registered as evidence.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like evidence_upload_url_create by emphasizing the 'temporary' and 'not yet registered' scope. It also explicitly names alternative flows, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for staging content that another operation will reference.' It also provides clear exclusions and alternatives: 'for real evidence prefer the register-then-upload flow (evidence_group_evidence_register) or the evidence_create_sealed composite, which handle registration and upload together.' This is exemplary guidance.

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