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

Annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent, open-world nature, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: it returns a new mediaId, requires media.create, refuses private/loopback addresses unless onScreenNetwork is set, and explains that on-screen-network URLs are stored but never fetched by the cloud. This is rich behavioral context beyond structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then branches into return value, special parameter behavior, alternative tool, and permission requirement. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information with no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, but the description still highlights the important mediaId. It covers purpose, alternatives, sequencing, permission requirements, and the one non-obvious parameter behavior, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description meaningfully supplements the schema for the critical onScreenNetwork parameter — explaining what setting it true actually does — and clarifies the URL restriction for private/loopback addresses, though it adds little beyond the schema for name, tags, or folderId.

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 and resource — adding a web page or dashboard to the media library — and immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools like configure_web_link and upload_media_from_url. An agent can tell what the tool creates and where it belongs without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative for a different use case (upload_media_from_url for copying files), gives the follow-up step (pass mediaId to configure_web_link), and states the condition for the special onScreenNetwork path. Nothing about when to use this tool versus alternatives is left to inference.

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