Start File Extraction

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: credits are consumed, submission is confirmed but not success, a recovery task_id should be reused rather than re-uploading, and the returned auto_approve echoes the request rather than backend approval status.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent clause carries distinct information (follow-ups, credits, timeout recovery, auto_approve). It is dense and semicolon-chained, which slightly hurts scanability, but little is wasted.

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 an async submission tool with annotations and an output schema already present, the description covers the async contract, downstream tool chain, cost, failure/recovery path, and the non-obvious auto_approve caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 already 86%, so most parameters are self-documenting, but the description adds interpretation the schema does not: auto_approve=false triggers human review that MCP cannot perform or approve, and the echoed value is not approval status. It adds useful nuance above the baseline.

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 clause states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Start background extraction of one local file.' It also distinguishes itself from the async siblings by stating it returns task_id 'without waiting for processing,' making it clearly distinct from wait_for_task_extraction and extract_file.

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 maps the downstream workflow explicitly (wait_for_task_extraction, then fetch_document_result or download_results, with get_task_results for partials) and gives a recovery rule on timeout. It does not directly compare against extract_file/extract_folder, so the choice among the start/extract family is left partly implicit.

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