upload_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the private-by-default unlisted behavior explained as a safety choice, the upload-directory path requirement and size limits, and the Pro-only gating of publish_date, disable_comments, hide_stats, and hosts. It does not cover auth requirements, whether uploads are reversible, failure behavior, or return values, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the dense remainder is mostly constraint detail that earns its place for a no-schema-coverage tool. It reads as a packed block rather than a cleanly organized list, which slightly hurts scanability but costs little.

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 an 11-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers nearly every parameter's format and limits plus the default privacy behavior. Auth prerequisites and any response/failure semantics are the remaining gaps, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents mp3 (4 GB), picture (10 MB), description (1000 chars), tags (max 5), hosts (max 2 usernames), unlisted default, publish_date UTC format with an example, and the sections structure with a concrete list example. This adds substantial meaning that the bare schema lacks.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Upload a show"), which cleanly separates it from the read/mutation siblings get_show and edit_show. The following sentences layer on scope and limits, so an agent immediately knows this creates a new show from an audio file.

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?

Usage is implied through constraints and defaults (unlisted defaults True for safety, set unlisted=False to publish publicly, Pro-only gating), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as edit_show or whether an existing show should be updated instead. The guidance is informative but leaves routing between create and edit to inference.

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