Upload Ad Asset

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the asset is uploaded to NewsBreak CDN, may be saved to the Media Library, and returns assetUrl/mediaId. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as duplicate uploads, file size or format limits, or auth/permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a compact Args/Returns structure. It remains readable and avoids fluff, though the Args list repeats information already in the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the Returns section usefully supplies the expected result (assetUrl and mediaId). All parameters and the conditional requirement are covered in one place. It is complete enough for a straightforward upload tool, though minor operational details such as size limits or supported file types are absent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mostly restates the parameter meanings and the conditional relationship between saveToMediaLibrary and mediaName, which is also present in the schema. It adds little beyond the structured definition.

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 a specific action ('Upload an image, video, or GIF asset to NewsBreak CDN') and the downstream purpose ('The returned assetUrl can then be used when creating ads'). It distinguishes this tool from the campaign/ad-management siblings because none of them handle asset uploads.

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 workflow context by explaining that the returned assetUrl is intended for ad creation. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but among the listed siblings this is the only asset-upload tool, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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