card_builder_upload_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that content_base64 must be pre-encoded and specifies the return format. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting), permissions, size limits, or error conditions.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds critical encoding and return info. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers the encoding requirement and return format but omits details about the path parameter, error handling, and any constraints on filename or content size.

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 compensate. It explains content_base64 (must be base64-encoded) but does not describe filename or path. The path parameter is left undefined, and no constraints (e.g., allowed extensions) are given.

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 a file') and the target resource ('Card Builder media directory'). It mentions the encoding requirement and return format, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like card_builder_upload_image_from_url or card_builder_upload_media_from_path, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, if the user has a URL or file path, they should use other tools. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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