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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional file upload and waiting, but omits side effects, whether waiting blocks, error behavior, auth requirements, or idempotency. For a creation/resumption tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence with a front-loaded action phrase and no wasted words. Each clause adds meaningful scope: create/resume, upload files, wait for completion. It is appropriately succinct.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters and nested object schemas, yet the description covers only two behavioral aspects. The output schema helps with return values, but with no annotations and minimal description, an agent lacks essential context to construct and invoke a valid assembly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 10 parameters. It only hints at 'uploading files' and 'waiting for completion,' which maps loosely to files and wait-related parameters, but it does not explain assembly_url, instructions, upload_behavior, timeouts, or concurrency options.

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 phrase 'Create or resume an Assembly' gives a specific action and resource, and 'optionally uploading files and waiting for completion' clarifies its scope. This differentiates it from siblings like transloadit_get_assembly_status or transloadit_wait_for_assembly, even though the resume mechanism is not detailed.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that waiting could be delegated to transloadit_wait_for_assembly or that status checks are better for existing assemblies. Usage is only implied by the verb, not explicitly stated.

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