evidence_upload_url_create

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

Annotations are all false/default and offer no meaningful safety or mutation hints. The description carries the burden and reveals a key trait: the tool only creates a pre-signed URL, it does not upload the file; the caller must PUT bytes to that URL. It does not mention expiration or auth requirements, but the essential non-obvious behavior is disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise flow and pairing context. No filler or redundant details; every sentence earns its place.

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 flow, prerequisite, and PUT action are well explained, and the description adds useful pairing context. However, with no output schema and sparse annotations, it still leaves gaps: no return format, no URL expiry, no explanation of how fileName is used, and no distinction from analogous upload-URL siblings.

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 input schema describes evidenceId, but fileName has only a minLength and no semantic description. The description completely omits fileName, even though it is a required parameter, and only contextualizes evidenceId via the flow. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter meaning.

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?

Description names a specific action: 'Creates a fresh presigned upload URL for an already-registered evidence by evidenceId', and clearly positions it as step 2 of a flow. It distinguishes from generate_evidence and similar sibling tools by specifying the register-then-upload order and referencing evidenceId rather than creating the evidence itself.

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?

Provides clear context: requires generate_evidence → evidenceId, instructs the agent to PUT file bytes to the returned URL, and names a parallel pairing. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like evidence_temp_file_upload_url_create or evidence_multipart_upload_start, so it stops short of a full when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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