get_upload_urls

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

With only destructiveHint=true supplied, the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (a sample URL and a full-dataset URL), the required client-side action (direct PUT of bytes), and the mandatory follow-up call to confirm_upload. It does not mention URL expiry, size limits, or authentication requirements for the signed URLs.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the sequence of actions is front-loaded so the agent learns the output and the next step immediately.

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, so the description must describe the return value — and it does, naming both URLs and the returned path. Remaining gaps are URL lifetime and any preconditions on the draft listing, which are minor for a single-parameter provisioning call.

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% with a single well-documented parameter (dataset_id, draft dataset UUID), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that this is a draft listing context but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Provision signed upload URLs for a draft listing,' and immediately clarifies the payload ('URLs for the sample and full dataset files'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_download_url and confirm_upload, which an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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?

It gives clear workflow context: PUT the file bytes to the returned upload_url, then call confirm_upload with the returned path — effectively stating when this tool is used and what comes next. It stops short of explicit exclusions or stating prerequisites (e.g., that the listing must already exist in draft state).

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