Upload package file chunks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main added value is the permission requirement ('Perm: manage_software_repository') and the explicit warning that the endpoint is unavailable. It does not explain what the upload mutates, how chunks relate to upload_id, or what happens on retry given the idempotent claim.

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 of the three sentences say the same thing, and 'see error text' is a forward reference that earns little. The most decision-relevant fact (unsupported) is front-loaded, which is the one structural positive.

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 destructive, multi-parameter chunk-upload operation, the description explains neither the chunking protocol, the interplay with dry_run/confirm, nor which sibling performs the supported equivalent. Saying 'not supported' is helpful but leaves the agent without a next step.

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 100%, so package_id, version_id, platform, upload_id, body, confirm and dry_run are already documented at the field level. The description adds nothing beyond the permission name; baseline 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Upload package file chunks' states a verb and resource, but the same sentence is repeated twice ('Uploads package file chunks') without adding information, making it effectively a restatement of the title. The leading line 'Not supported by this server' muddies rather than clarifies the purpose, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling action1_init_software_upload.

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 only usage signal is 'Not supported by this server (see error text)', which tells the agent the call will fail but gives no alternative such as action1_init_software_upload or any condition under which this tool would work. That is a bare warning, not guidance.

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