upload_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so well: it warns about SignatureDoesNotMatch if Content-Disposition is altered, tells the agent to request network permission upfront, and specifies post-conditions (upload success, then use objectKey). This goes far beyond a simple 'get link' statement.

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 description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, execution caution, network handling, downstream chaining. Minor redundancy in the network instruction ('first time' vs 'don't try fail first') costs a little, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately reveals the expected return fields (uploadCommand, objectKey) and how to proceed. It could detail error handling beyond SignatureDoesNotMatch, but the essential workflow for successful use is fully specified.

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%, so the description need not repeat parameter meaning; it doesn't add extra semantics beyond mentioning the file path replacement in uploadCommand, which is not a direct parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: obtain a pre-signed upload link for a document, then instructs executing the returned uploadCommand. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like translate_document and upload_video, which handle different stages of the workflow.

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?

Explains the exact workflow: get link, execute uploadCommand as-is, then call translate_document with objectKey. It also provides conditional guidance on network permissions. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the chaining instruction makes the use case unambiguous.

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