upload_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose several traits beyond the schema: the size ceiling, the accepted MIME types, and the return value (a public URL). It is silent on auth/permission requirements, what happens if the 10MB limit is exceeded, or whether an existing item with the same name is overwritten, which are the higher-value disclosures for an upload mutator.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. Format and size constraints are front-loaded, and the return-value note lands last where it is most useful.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers capabilities, constraints, and the return value (so the absent output schema is less of a gap). The main omission is any statement about permissions or failure/overwrite behavior.

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%, so the schema already explains url, path, and name. The description restates the path-vs-URL duality but adds no format, precedence, or conflict rules beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ('upload an image or PDF'), enumerates accepted formats (jpg, png, gif, svg, webp, pdf), states a hard limit (max 10MB), and names both input modes. It is unmistakably distinct from its list_media and delete_media siblings without needing to name 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the closing clause 'reference in HTML' hints at the intended workflow, and 'from a local file path or a remote URL' tells the agent the two input modes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to an alternative tool.

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