start_schematic_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It doesn't state that this is likely a non-atomic, resumable upload flow, whether it requires prior authentication, what happens to an interrupted upload, or that cancellation is available via cancel_upload. Only the bare fact of initiating an upload is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally clean. The brevity reflects under-specification rather than genuine economy, but as a conciseness measure it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, a mutation-style upload initiator with zero annotation coverage, 0% documented parameters, and two required arguments leaves the agent guessing about authentication, sequencing with get_upload_progress/cancel_upload, and failure modes.

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% across three parameters (name, priority, expected_size), and the description supplies no compensating detail. An agent cannot tell whether name is a local filename, a remote key, or a display label, nor what priority values are legal or how expected_size is used for validation.

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 names a specific verb ("start uploading") and resource ("a schematic file"), so the agent knows exactly what operation is being initiated. It stops short of differentiating from siblings like cancel_upload, get_upload_progress, or build_open_schematic, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus cancel_upload, get_upload_progress, or build_open_schematic, nor any prerequisites or sequencing hints. The word "Start" hints at a multi-step flow, but the description never says what to do next or when this is the right entry point.

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