create_file_asset

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description carries the critical behavioral disclosure that this call FAILS against the current backend. It explains why (missing multipart upload init) and notes the return is a signed URL for uploading. This is precisely the context an agent needs to avoid calling a broken tool.

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?

Well structured: deprecation warning front-loaded, failure reason given, alternative named, then parameter notes. Every sentence earns its place; slightly long given the tool should never be used, but the detail is justified by the need to prevent misuse.

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 deprecated tool that fails, the essential context is the deprecation, the failure mode, and the correct alternative — all present. The description also notes the return value (signed URL), which compensates for the absent output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents two of five parameters: workspace_id (get from list_workspaces) and extension (no dot, with example 'pdf'). The remaining three — name, hub_profile_id, memory_size_in_bytes — are reasonably self-evident from the schema titles, but the description does not add format or source details for 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?

States the action clearly (create a file asset record) and immediately flags the DEPRECATED status with a concrete failure reason. Distinguishes itself from upload_asset by explaining the backend now requires multipart init, so an agent can tell why it must not be selected.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use `upload_asset` to create and upload in one step, naming the exact alternative and the condition that selects it. This is exactly the routing guidance a deprecated tool needs.

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