nexus_request_media_upload_url

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the JSON response shape ({url, uuid}) and the required follow-up: upload the file to the returned URL and then reference the uuid. This meaningfully explains the tool's role in a multi-step process.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, and two short sentences describe the return value and next step. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague 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 two-parameter, optional-input tool with output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the core workflow well: request URL, upload file, use uuid. The only notable gap is the absence of any guidance about when to choose this tool over related upload/media tools, though that is more of a usage-guideline concern.

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%, with both parameters having minimal but adequate descriptions ('File name including extension.' and 'MIME type.'). The tool description does not add further parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already documents the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Request a presigned URL for uploading media.' It clearly explains this is a URL-request step, not the actual upload, and mentions the v2 GraphQL context. The return shape and follow-up action ('Upload the file to url, then reference the uuid') further distinguish it from any direct-upload sibling.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexus_upload_attachment or other media-related tools. The intended workflow is implied by the purpose, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are provided.

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