upload_media

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds the material behavior the agent actually needs: file bytes leave the machine for Telegram, local runtime dependencies (Pillow, ffprobe) can cause failure, media IDs are account-scoped, and there is no idempotency key so retries may duplicate media. This is meaningful disclosure well beyond the annotation flags.

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 first sentence pins the purpose, followed by preconditions, return summary, ID-reuse constraint, and retry caveat in short declarative blocks. Every sentence adds operational information and the most important constraints are front-loaded.

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 three-parameter upload tool with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, scoping, defaults, and the non-idempotency risk — everything needed to call it correctly or decide against retrying. The return summary is slightly redundant with the output schema but costs nothing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for two of three parameters: file_path is constrained to an absolute server-side path with its bytes transmitted, and account_id's fallback to the configured default or token owner is spelled out. The kind parameter is only described indirectly via the media-type list rather than mapping ad_photo/ad_video/website_photo explicitly.

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 a local photo, MP4 video, or website photo to Telegram Ads' — and enumerates the supported media types, which map onto the three kind enum values. No sibling tool performs uploads, so no disambiguation is required, and an agent can tell immediately what this does.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions for use: file_path must be an absolute server path, images are validated with Pillow, and video uploads require ffprobe from FFmpeg on PATH. It also warns that reuse should stay within the same account and that retries may create a new media ID. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use cases, but there is no competing sibling to route away from.

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