bricks_upload_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions uploading and return data but omits potential side effects (e.g., file permissions, size limits, error handling). The description is vague about what constitutes a successful upload.

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 succinct sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states the action, second specifies options and output. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists key return fields (ID, URL, metadata). Parameters are covered. Missing error behavior or prerequisites, but for a straightforward upload tool, completeness is adequate.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds value by associating 'file_path' and 'url' as alternatives and noting return values, but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 clearly states 'Upload an image to the WordPress Media Library' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like bricks_list_media by focusing on upload and listing return values (attachment ID, URL, metadata).

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?

It instructs to 'Provide either a local file_path or a URL,' giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives for non-image files (e.g., bricks_upload_font).

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