Generate upload URL

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which offer minimal safety context. The description discloses the outputs (url, auth_key, rest_auth_key) and the intended upload flow, but does not state whether generating the URL has any side effects (e.g., creating a session or consuming quota). It implies a non-destructive operation but does not explicitly say so.

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 lengthy but well-organized: it starts with the return values and core purpose, then gives numbered steps and a concrete curl example. Every section contributes value, and the structure makes the long content easy to scan. The detail is justified by the need to explain the TUS protocol.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers return values and usage: it explains what to do with url, auth_key, and rest_auth_key, provides headers, expected status codes, and both TUS-client and curl workflows. The examples are complete and actionable, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (domain and username) with 100% coverage, giving each a basic description. The tool description does not add further meaning about these parameters beyond integrating them into the upload context (e.g., 'relative_file_path' is not a parameter). Baseline of 3 applies given schema coverage; description adds minimal value.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('file browser upload URL') and explains its purpose: 'for uploading files directly to a website's file storage.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the many deployment and hosting tools in the sibling list by focusing on URL generation rather than file transfer or site management.

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 explicit step-by-step instructions on how to use the returned URL and credentials, including the TUS protocol workflow and a plain curl alternative. It does not explicitly discuss when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, but within the sibling set there is no direct equivalent (except agency-hosting_generateUploadURLV1, which is distinct by namespace), so context is sufficient.

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