Upload reference media to Dare

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

Annotations already convey the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds meaningful non-schema context: 'Spends no credits' and 'returns its storage key.' It does not detail persistence or failure behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden, and what is disclosed is relevant.

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 front-load the purpose, then cover accepted inputs and cost. There is no filler or duplication of schema details that are already present.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (storage key) and its downstream use. The main gap is that although it says 'a local file path, a public URL, or base64 bytes,' it does not explicitly state that at least one of these is required, which is important given the schema lists zero required parameters.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds a useful summary of the three source options (file_path, url, base64) but does not significantly extend the schema's meaning for individual 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 ('Upload an image, video or audio file to Dare'), states the concrete output ('return its storage key'), and connects the tool to its downstream consumers ('dare_generate_video or dare_generate_image'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list/delete uploads.

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 clearly explains the intended context: uploading reference media to be used in generation tools. It also names the accepted input forms. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but among the siblings there is no competing upload tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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