get_dataset_upload_urls

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that signed URLs are short-lived, that a stale URL should be re-fetched, that the signature is derived from the byte size so incorrect values fail at PUT time, and that the caller should poll get_dataset_status until READY. This gives agents a realistic model of the operation's lifecycle.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds necessary usage or behavioral information. The Args section is compact, and the workflow guidance about short-lived URLs and polling earns its place.

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 a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives everything an agent needs: what to pass, what comes back (upload_url, method, headers), how to use those values, and what to do after uploads succeed. The full lifecycle from request to READY is covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It defines dataset_id as the target dataset and gives a concrete example for filename_to_byte_size, including the critical detail that exact byte sizes are required because the signature is derived from them.

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: it gets signed upload URLs for dataset files the server cannot fetch. This clearly separates it from siblings like upload_dataset_file_from_url and upload_dataset_text_file by emphasizing local files and server-unfetchable content.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for local files and for anything over 150 MB. It also communicates the alternative scenario ('server cannot fetch'), implying when a different upload path should be used, and explains the PUT workflow that follows.

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