ruddur_create_media_upload

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing a required OAuth scope (media.manage) and explaining that the server accepts common media aliases. It aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) and does not contradict them. It omits details like response format or URL expiration, but with annotations present the additional scope and alias behavior add meaningful transparency.

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 two short sentences: the first states the action and object, the second covers aliases and permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 create operation with an open-world body and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input aliases, and the required scope, which is enough for basic selection and invocation. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., the presigned URL or an upload ID), but the tool name and presigned-upload phrasing make the workflow reasonably clear. Given the open schema and sibling context, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

Although the schema already describes body and query parameters, the tool description adds media-specific aliases (title/name, mimeType/contentType, size/fileSize, heading/waypoint/listing identifiers), which are not present in the schema. This significantly enhances understanding of how to construct the body. The generic body description is supplemented by this alias mapping, giving the description added value beyond the schema.

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-plus-resource construction, 'Create a presigned creator-media upload,' which clearly states the tool's action and object. This distinguishes it from sibling media tools like list_media_assets, update_media_asset, and attach_media_asset. The mention of media aliases further clarifies the tool's exact purpose.

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 clear context by specifying the tool creates a presigned creator-media upload and requires the media.manage scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions where a different tool/approach should be used. The uniqueness of the tool among siblings makes the use case inferable, but the guidance is not explicit.

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