wb_media_upload_file

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

The description discloses that the server downloads and sends the file, which is useful. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits important behavioral details such as side effects, file size/type limits, overwrite behavior, or failure modes.

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 short and mostly front-loaded, but it is awkwardly structured and mixes languages with 'video = 1 (загрузить фото файлом)'. It could be clearer while remaining brief.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out too much operational context: accepted file formats, size limits, response behavior, and how this relates to the sibling wb_media_upload. An agent would need to infer several critical details.

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?

The description adds meaning to photo_number ('from 1', 'video = 1') and confirms that a file URL is used, which goes beyond the sparse schema. However, nm_id has no description and overall schema description coverage is only 33%, leaving key semantics under-specified.

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 clearly states the action (upload), the resource (media), and the delivery mechanism (as a FILE by URL, server downloads and sends). This distinguishes it from a generic media upload, though it does not explicitly name its closest sibling wb_media_upload.

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 gives partial parameter guidance like 'photo_number from 1, video = 1', but it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as wb_media_upload. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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