media_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, size/extension limits, the fact that uploads are refused when LIBREDESK_MCP_UPLOAD_DIR is unset, or what the call returns. Only the raw endpoint and tag are given, which is not behavioral context.

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?

It is short, but the content is auto-generated boilerplate (name, HTTP method, path, tag) that does not front-load anything useful. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

This is a file-upload mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the case where the description must do the most work. It provides none of the missing pieces: auth/permission expectations, failure modes, or the shape of a successful response.

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 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema itself, including file-path semantics, the inline flag, and the linked_model permission note. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Media Upload" restates the tool name and is followed only by an HTTP verb/path and a tag label. It never states in prose what the tool does with the file (store it, attach it, serve it) or how it differs from the sibling serve_media, so an agent learns nothing beyond the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative such as serve_media or the upload-directory requirement. The line "Tags: Media" is a routing label, not usage instruction.

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