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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true/destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantial context they don't cover: 15-minute validity, 100 MB per file, 20 files per link, a max_files field, and the non-obvious edge case that oversized files still land in the library but are invisible to the upload status. It also describes the two-step workflow (give link, then poll status), which materially affects correct invocation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, then rationale, limits, workflow, and parameter notes in that order. Slightly long and the 'no binary channel' aside is verbose, but nearly every sentence supplies constraints or alternatives the agent actually needs.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still flags the relevant max_files field. Combined with limits, validity window, fallback path, and the required follow-up tool, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does: 'workspace: Slug des Kunden-Workspace (optional bei nur einem Workspace)', explaining both meaning and when it can be omitted. It stops short of format examples for the slug, which keeps it just under a 5.

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?

First sentence states a specific verb and outcome: generate an upload link so the customer can load a LOCAL file into the Strapi media library. It is clearly distinguishable from strapi_upload_media, which the description explicitly names as the alternative for online-reachable files.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Wenn die Datei nur auf dem Rechner des Kunden liegt') and when-not ('Ist sie online erreichbar, ist strapi_upload_media(source_url=...) direkter'), plus the follow-up tool strapi_check_upload_status for retrieving media IDs. The agent has a complete routing decision without inference.

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