Upload Media

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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond these: files become publicly accessible immediately regardless of post association, omitting both sources returns an error, and url inputs are downloaded and re-hosted by the server. No contradiction exists; the description consistently frames upload as a state-changing, non-destructive operation.

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?

Seven sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, sources, error case, MIME types, public-visibility implication, sibling preference, and return-format usage. It is front-loaded with the purpose and reads efficiently; it could be marginally tightened but no sentence is redundant.

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 two-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, which siblings to compare against, how each source behaves, the error condition, accepted MIME types, the public-by-default data exposure risk, and how to pass results into create_post/update_post/bulk_schedule_posts. Nothing material is left unaddressed.

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 already-detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning above the schema: it explains what the server does with urls (downloads and re-hosts), clarifies that files is for conversation-attached media, and states the two sources are combinable in one call. This pushes it slightly above baseline though the schema carries much of the load.

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?

States a specific verb (Upload), resource (images/videos to AdaptlyPost storage), and outcome (return public URLs for mediaUrls), naming exactly which consuming tools it feeds (create_post, update_post, bulk_schedule_posts). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_upload_urls, so an agent can separate these siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer this over get_upload_urls' and explains why (get_upload_urls only mints URLs and leaves the PUT to you). It also gives use-case guidance for the two sources: files for 'media attached in the conversation', urls for public URLs the server re-hosts. Clear when-to-use conditions are present.

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