notification_document_upload_url_create

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool only generates a URL and does not upload the file, and the caller must 'PUT the file bytes to the returned URL'. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the subsequent action. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the PUT instruction. The dependency chain is compactly expressed with arrows. Every phrase serves a purpose, with no 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 output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is needed. The description covers the workflow context (what must happen before and after calling this). It does not mention the optional fileSize, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the provided workflow.

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 describes requestId and attachmentId with 'Obtain from' guidance, and the description repeats this. The optional fileSize parameter lacks a schema description, and the description does not explain its meaning or relevance. Schema coverage is 67%, so the description adds marginal value over the schema but does not fully compensate for fileSize.

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 action: 'Creates a presigned upload URL for a document attachment already registered via notification_document_add'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like notification_document_download_url_create by specifying upload and using the verb 'creates' with a specific resource.

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 explicitly provides the required prior steps: 'Requires: notification_request_create → requestId, notification_document_add → attachmentId'. It implies when to use the tool (after registering a document, before uploading bytes) and even explains how to use the result (PUT to the URL). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied workflow.

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