confirm_upload

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the 'drafts only' scope, the automatic sample-generation side effect, and the required follow-up polling. It does not explain what the destructive hint refers to (e.g. overwriting an existing upload), which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action, then parameter guidance, then the next step. No filler; each clause carries operational information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the side effect and the polling step needed to know when the sample is ready. It omits failure/error behavior, but for a 3-param confirmation tool this is close to complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented; the description adds real value by tying full_data_path to get_upload_urls and explaining the non-obvious format choice ('use format "zip" for archives so the preview is generated from the archive contents'), which the enum alone cannot convey.

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+resource ('Confirm a file has been uploaded to its signed URL') and adds the side effect ('trigger automatic sample generation (drafts only)'). An agent can distinguish it from get_upload_urls and get_listing_status, which it names as the surrounding steps.

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?

Gives explicit workflow routing: call after get_upload_urls, pass full_data_path, then 'Poll get_listing_status until the sample is ready before publishing.' The 'drafts only' scope plus the zip special-case cover when and how to use it.

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