upload_arbitrary

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the overwrite scope (storage only), the readback verification step, and the explicit clarification that it does not affect output routing or slot selection. It does not cover failure behavior or what happens to an invalid sample value.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its constraints, followed by the scope limitation. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a two-parameter write tool with no output schema, this covers the action, both parameter constraints, the destructive scope, and the readback verification. The remaining gap is error/validation behavior on out-of-range inputs, which an agent might need before calling.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters — and it does: slot is constrained to 1..60, samples must be 2048 integers in 0..4095. Both parameters gain constraints absent from the schema. It does not state what happens when slot or sample count is out of bounds.

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?

States a specific verb (Overwrite) plus resource (slot 1..60 with 2048 samples), and bounds the purpose with concrete constraints (0..4095 values, readback verification). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read_arbitrary by naming the write/overwrite semantic.

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 second sentence gives explicit negative guidance: it does not select the slot or enable output, implying those are separate operations (set_outputs/configure_channel). That is genuinely useful routing context, though it never names the specific sibling tool to use for those follow-on steps, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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