upload_asset_file

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

With annotations limited to destructiveHint=false, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses that only one of three steps is verified, that failure can leave a data asset and a dangling attachment record behind, and that no rollback is attempted. That is unusually candid failure-mode disclosure, though it omits auth requirements, return values, and size/rate limits. Leaving orphan records is a residual side effect rather than destruction of existing data, so it does not directly contradict destructiveHint=false.

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 text is dense and front-loaded with "EXPERIMENTAL", with no filler sentences. However, nearly every line is spent on confidence caveats while the core purpose goes unstated, so the space is poorly allocated for a tool-selection document.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition omits the basic operation description, the parameters beyond the two documented in schema, and any indication of what the call returns. The warning content is useful but does not substitute for the missing operational core.

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 only 33% across 6 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate — but it says nothing about name, project_id, mime_type, or description, and adds no meaning to the file_path/content_base64 choice beyond what the schema already documents. The low coverage gap is left entirely unfilled.

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 never states what the tool does in a direct verb+resource form; the agent must infer from fragments like "create-data-asset step", "attachment-creation", and "signed-URL PUT" that this uploads a file into a data asset. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling create_asset at all, so an agent cannot tell from the text whether this creates the asset, attaches a file, or both.

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 versus create_asset or any other sibling, and no note on required prerequisites such as authentication or project permissions. The only actionable advice is a caution to re-verify against a live cluster before relying on it, which is a confidence warning rather than usage routing.

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