publer_upload_media_from_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains async processing and the need to poll for the media ID. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose; the second explains the async flow and next step. Every sentence is essential.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (job_id) and usage pattern. It covers the async behavior and how to obtain the media ID. It could mention file size limits or accepted formats, but overall complete for a URL upload tool.

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%, so the description's additional context adds value beyond the schema. The mention of example URL types (Dropbox shared link, public image) provides practical guidance for the 'url' parameter.

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 ('Upload media') and resource ('Publer from a URL'), with concrete examples (Dropbox shared link, public image URL). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like publer_get_job_status by mentioning async processing.

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 tells when to use the tool (upload media from a URL) and provides a clear next step (poll with get_job_status). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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