upload_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful constraints: max 50MB, supported file types, and that the returned asset's url is usable in block content and media fields. However, it does not explain error behavior, storage defaults, or the fact that likely one of filePath or url must be supplied even though no parameter is marked required.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then packs constraints and output usage into minimal, high-value clauses.

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 6-parameter upload tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is solid but incomplete. It gives size, format, and return usage, but an agent still lacks clear semantics around which source parameter to provide, what happens on validation failure, and the full shape of the returned asset.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by imposing file size and accepted format constraints and by clarifying the local-path/remote-URL source alternatives. It does not need to repeat tags/alt/folder details because the schema covers them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: upload a file to the workspace media library. It also clarifies the two source modes, file type/size limits, and the output's purpose, making the tool's function unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling media tools such as list_media or move_media, so it falls just short of full sibling distinction.

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 usage context is implied through 'Upload a file to the workspace media library from a local path or a remote URL,' which tells an agent when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, so the guidance relies on inference rather than clear exclusions.

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