Upload Media

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 states the operation (upload) and return value (URL), but lacks details on side effects (e.g., file storage, size limits, permissions, or whether the URL is permanent).

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 with no filler. Each sentence provides essential information: what the tool does and what it returns. The description is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (URL). However, it omits important context like file size limits, supported file formats (though examples), and whether the URL is permanent or temporary. Additional details on authorization requirements would be helpful.

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%, and the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that filename should include extension ('e.g., 'photo.jpg'') and listing example MIME types. This helps the agent understand expected input format.

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 clearly states the verb 'Upload' and the resource 'media file' with examples (image, document, audio, video). It also mentions the return value (URL) and its purpose (messages and broadcasts). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'neuron_upload_document', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 implies usage for uploading media to be used in messages/broadcasts. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like 'neuron_upload_document' for document-only uploads.

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