finalize_image_upload

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

The description discloses the side effect of recording the image in the team media library and the verification step, which goes beyond the annotations and schema. Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, so the description usefully clarifies that this is a mutating finalization step, not merely a metadata update.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The prerequisite and step ordering are front-loaded, the action and outcome are stated, and the follow-up usage is a single targeted sentence.

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 an output schema present, the description need not spell out the return shape; it still mentions media id + public URL. Combined with the explicit prepare_image_upload prerequisite and update_form consumer guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool 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 100%, and each parameter already carries accurate context: key is the object key from prepare_image_upload, filename must match the prepare call, mimeType is the prepare-time MIME type, and alt is optional. The description reinforces the flow but adds no new parameter-level detail.

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 names a clear action ('call this AFTER you have PUT the file'), a specific resource (the uploaded object / team media library), and a concrete outcome (verifies, records, returns a media id + public URL). It clearly distinguishes itself from prepare_image_upload by framing it as 'Step 2 of 2'.

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 explicitly sequenced: it must be called after the PUT to the uploadUrl from prepare_image_upload, and the description gives a follow-up path via update_form for covers. It does not explicitly state when not to call it, but the protocol is unambiguous.

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