pfm_create_media_upload_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that media assets are temporary and details the exact deletion triggers: after post publication, after 24 hours if unused, or when the post is deleted. This goes beyond a basic functional description, though it does not cover authorization requirements or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by key workflow details and lifecycle behavior. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no wordiness or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, required usage steps (PUT and then use in post), returned fields, and the critical temporary nature of media assets. It does not elaborate on file size/type constraints, but for a tool this straightforward, the description is sufficiently comprehensive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none, and the schema is already complete with an empty object. No gap exists.

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 tool's function: 'Request a signed upload URL for a media file (image/video).' It specifies the exact action (request) and resource (signed upload URL for media), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like post creation or account management by focusing on media upload specifically.

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?

The description provides clear procedural context: it tells the agent to PUT the file to the returned `upload_url` and then use `media_url` in a post. This implies when to use the tool (before publishing media content) but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, though none are relevant. This is clear context without explicit '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.