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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers well: auth scope (every authenticated user), size caps for each path, persistence ("stored and recorded as an upload asset"), downstream reuse of the returned url, and host-dependent panel rendering with a do-not-duplicate instruction. It omits failure modes and any credit/quota implications, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the preferred input path, then alternatives, then result/host behavior in a logical order. It is a dense single paragraph rather than scannable lines, but nearly every clause carries operational value.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return value and its reuse sites (create_post media, reference images, clipping input) plus the panel rendering. Error handling and asynchronous progress behavior are not addressed, so it falls just short of fully complete.

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 lifts it by explaining the url-vs-base64 tradeoff and the size ceilings, which is selection guidance the schema doesn't fully convey. It adds little on fileName or contentType beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Upload media to the user's Unsora library") and immediately clarifies the two input paths (source URL vs. base64). It also routes between siblings (create_upload_url + complete_upload, list_uploads), so an agent can distinguish this from them without opening a 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?

Explicit guidance on when to use which input: URL preferred (up to 200MB), base64 only for small files (≤ ~7MB), and a direct hand-off to create_upload_url + complete_upload for larger local files. The list_uploads panel alternative is also named, so choice conditions are unambiguous.

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