get_upload_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does explain the two-step flow (POST to uploadUrl, then use publicUrl) and the performance rationale, which is genuine behavioral context. But it omits material traits of presigned URLs: expiry, size/content-type constraints, and whether auth is required to call this tool, leaving key operational unknowns.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact two-item Returns block, with zero filler. The capitalized emphasis is slightly informal but does not bloat 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (uploadUrl, publicUrl) and what to do with each. For a simple two-param tool this is close to complete, though it leaves the presigned URL's lifetime and upload constraints unstated.

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% and both parameters (filename, contentType) are documented in the schema with examples and a default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('presigned URL') with the qualifying scope 'for fast direct image uploads'. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all presentation/slide/workspace CRUD operations.

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?

Implies usage via the contrast with base64 encoding ('This is MUCH faster than base64 encoding'), which tells the agent to prefer this path for image uploads. However, it never states when-not to use it, any prerequisites, or which sibling consumes the returned URL in practice.

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