post-uploads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions creating 'temporary' URLs and supporting 'multipart uploads,' which hints at behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, expiration times, error handling, or whether this initiates a write operation. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or detailed behavioral traits. While the schema handles parameter documentation, the description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use, especially for a tool that likely involves file uploads and mutations.

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 high (89%), so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context. For example, it doesn't clarify how 'fileName,' 'fileSize,' 'parts,' and 'contentType' relate to multipart uploads versus other parameters like 'url.' Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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: 'Create a temporary upload URL for a file. Support multipart uploads. Return a list of URLs for each part of the file.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('temporary upload URL'), and key capabilities (multipart support, returns URLs). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'post-asset' or 'post-uploads-action', which might handle similar upload-related functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'post-asset' and 'post-uploads-action', there's no indication of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the description alone, which lacks contextual direction.

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