complete_upload

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the load and does add real value by disclosing that completion kicks off hashing, verification, deduplication, and commit on the server. It stops short of saying whether the call returns immediately or blocks, whether it is idempotent on repeat calls, or what happens if parts are missing.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action leads and the consequences follow. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be explained, and the description adequately conveys the core behavior for a three-parameter tool. The remaining gap is flow-level: an agent is not told whether this is an asynchronous trigger that requires polling via wait_upload or get_upload_status.

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 upload_id, first_part, and limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, which is the baseline case when the schema does the work, though it also doesn't clarify why limit and first_part appear on a completion call.

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 and resource: 'Declare a direct upload complete' and enumerates the server-side work started (hashing, verification, deduplication, commit). This is far more specific than a bare name restatement and implicitly separates it from prepare_upload, abort_upload, and wait_upload, but it never names or explicitly contrasts those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'declare a direct upload complete' signals this is the final step of a direct-upload flow. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites (all parts uploaded), when not to use it, or whether to follow with wait_upload versus get_upload_status.

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