post-uploads-action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Trigger an action on upload,' which implies a mutation or state change, but doesn't specify whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, if it's asynchronous, or what happens upon completion. For a tool with potential side effects, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with a single sentence, 'Trigger an action on upload,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured, earning full marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 of triggering an action (likely a mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'action' entails, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. For a tool that could affect system state, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand its full context and behavior.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (uploadId and action) with clear descriptions and an enum for action. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or typical use cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Trigger an action on upload' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'post-uploads-action' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions 'upload' as the resource but doesn't specify what kind of action is triggered or what the outcome is, making it vague compared to more descriptive sibling tools like 'post-uploads' or 'post-job-action-by-job-id'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when an upload must be in a certain state or what other tools might be related. With many sibling tools available, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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