upload_job_input

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

It reveals a non-obvious interaction pattern: the tool itself does not receive the bytes; it returns an external upload_url, expects an HTTP PUT, and requires a final complete call. This goes well beyond annotations (openWorldHint) and is crucial for invoking the tool correctly.

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 dense sentences deliver the purpose, the protocol, and the link to submit_job without extra words. The workflow is front-loaded before the downstream step.

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?

It includes the essential multi-step flow and there is an output schema to document return values. Remaining gaps, such as upload_url authentication, slot expiry, or what completing actually does, keep it short of perfect.

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 needs to explain parameters. It only hints at kind via 'input file or script'; filename and content_type are left undefined. With three parameters and no schema-level descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 descripion uses a concrete verb and resource: 'Create a managed upload slot' rather than simply 'upload an input.' It also names the downstream submit_job and tells the agent the slot's output feeds it, which clearly distinguishes this from the sibling submit_job.

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 gives a concrete sequence: create slot, PUT bytes to upload_url, complete via complete_url, then pass input_id to submit_job. This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly contrast with sibling tools beyond submit_job.

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