Request a presigned upload URL for a digital file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a concrete, non-annotated behavioral trait – the 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop rate limit with a docs link – plus the multi-step lifecycle (URL → PUT → confirm) that the annotations do not convey. It does not explain what makes the call 'destructive', which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences plus a rate-limit notice; every sentence carries actionable information and there is no filler. The rate-limit warning is front-loaded ahead of the core purpose, which is slightly suboptimal ordering but does not hurt usability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of explaining the return value (a presigned uploadUrl) and the follow-up steps. Combined with the fully documented 9-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call it and complete the flow.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 9 parameters (including the nested payload object) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: it returns a presigned URL for uploading a digital file. The 'digital file' scoping and the reference to the confirm endpoint make it naturally distinguishable from siblings like request_media_upload_url, upload_file, and confirm_digital_file_upload.

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 uploadUrl, then call the confirm endpoint to link the file to the product. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with the alternative upload paths (upload_file, request_media_upload_url) or states when-not to use it, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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