bricks_upload_font

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states three behavioral outcomes: uploading to WordPress Media Library, registering the font, and modifying Global CSS. This is clear and covers the main side effects. However, it does not mention idempotency, potential overwrite behavior, or error states, which would elevate it to 5.

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 sentences long, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and adding implementation details in the second. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the core functionality and file types but lacks details on return values, error handling, or authentication needs. It is moderately complete but could be improved by mentioning expected output or failure modes.

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?

The description adds value beyond the 100% coverage schema by specifying accepted file extensions (.woff2, .woff, .ttf, .otf) and explaining the overall outcome of the parameter inputs. The schema already describes each parameter, but the description provides context and constraints that aid selection.

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 tool uploads custom font files (with explicit extensions) and registers them in Bricks Builder, outlining the three-step process: upload to Media Library, register font, and generate @font-face CSS. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bricks_register_font (which likely registers without uploading) and bricks_upload_media (general media upload).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it (e.g., for Google Fonts or existing URLs), or explicitly point to sibling tools like bricks_register_font for registering from a URL. The usage context is only implied.

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