create_upload_link

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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent call; the description adds the details that actually matter: the link is short-lived (15 minutes), it uploads as the calling user, it targets a specific site, and the response enumerates a documentId per stored asset. Those are behavioral facts no structured field carries.

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?

Three dense sentences front-loaded with purpose, then mechanics, then expiry/attribution, with zero filler. The parentheticals and the curl aside are useful rather than decorative, though the first sentence carries several stacked clauses and could be split for faster scanning.

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 one-param tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: why the tool exists versus the server-side alternative, the exact invocation format, the follow-up tools for the returned documentId, and the lifetime/identity semantics of the link.

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% and the single 'site' param is already well documented in the schema (slug/id, omit for default, pointer to list_sites). The description's 'into this site' confirms the param's effect on upload destination but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('get a short-lived link for uploading LOCAL files ... into the media library') and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling upload_asset by scoping to files on the user's own machine, which 'this server can't read'. An agent can distinguish this from upload_asset without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition (local files the server cannot read) and a concrete usage recipe — POST the link as multipart/form-data, several -F file=@ per request, with a curl example — plus the downstream steps (set_field for documentId, update_asset_alt for alt text). It never names the sibling alternative (upload_asset) explicitly, so it stops short of a full when-to-use-this-vs-that statement.

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