upload_media

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

With no annotations, the description discloses core behavior: accepted input sources (local path, base64, remote URL), destination bucket, and the return of a public CDN URL. However, it omits important details like file type restrictions, size limits, overwrite behavior, or auth requirements, which are left unspecified.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple upload tool, the description covers input formats and the output URL. It lacks details on error handling, file size limits, or content type restrictions, but these may be considered secondary for an upload tool with a clear schema.

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 100% with each parameter described in the schema. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description clearly states the tool uploads an image to a specific Supabase Storage bucket and returns a public CDN URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on publishing content (posts, POIs, events, etc.) rather than media upload.

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?

It explains the tool is for uploading images and mentions the URL can be used in posts, POIs, events, guides, or businesses. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear: use this before publishing content that requires media.

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