spatial_upload

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds that the tool returns an upload id and that the follow-up create_layer call changes spatial-service. However, it does not clarify whether the upload itself persists anything, whether it is idempotent, or what the default dryRun behavior means for the returned id; the schema already covers dryRun/confirm.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the action stated first and the return value and next step following. The parenthetical '[changes spatial-service]' and 'wiki step 2' are slightly cryptic but still contribute workflow context without bloating the text.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome (upload id) and next step, but it leaves out the meaning of path and any prerequisites or zip constraints. An agent could invoke it correctly, but richer context about the upload lifecycle and how to use the returned id would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 67%: dryRun and confirm are already explained in the schema, while path has no description. The description only implies that path contains a layer zip and does not add detail about path formats, required zip structure, or how the upload id relates to the parameters. This is adequate but does not compensate for the undocumented path parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and a concrete resource ('a layer zip'), clearly naming what the tool does and what it returns ('the upload id'). It also distinguishes itself from the closely related spatial_create_layer by presenting the upload as the prior step, so an agent can separate the two.

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 places the tool in a workflow ('wiki step 2') and explicitly names the next tool (spatial_create_layer), giving clear contextual guidance. It does not mention when to avoid this tool or compare it with similar siblings such as inspect_layer_zip, but the sequential cue is enough for most selection decisions.

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