Finalize Asset Upload

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it outlines the required sequence (call after get_asset_upload_url, need etag from PUT response), confirms the create action, and mentions automatic attachment. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, 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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential workflow details. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the return value (asset_id) and the overall workflow. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., invalid etag) or idempotency, which would be helpful for a multi-step process. Given no output schema, it is mostly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how uploadId and etag relate to the presigned URL process and that columnId is the target for attachment. This extra context justifies a score of 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Finalize a file upload and create the asset on monday.com.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing the prerequisite step (get_asset_upload_url) and the need to upload the file first, making its role in the workflow unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool: after uploading to the presigned URL and obtaining the etag. It mentions automatic attachment to a file column, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools. However, the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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