upload_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic behavior: accepts image/video from a public URL and returns a media ID. However, it lacks details on file size limits, supported formats, storage duration, or permissions required, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 short sentences focused on action, output, and integration. No fluff or redundant information. Information is front-loaded and each sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what it returns. However, it omits potential error conditions and acceptable media formats, which could be important for an agent.

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 the 'media_url' parameter already having a clear description. The description adds minimal value ('Provide either a public URL') which is redundant with the schema. Thus the description does not enhance meaning 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 the verb 'Upload', the resource 'media (image/video)', and the purpose 'for use in publishing posts'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'create_publishing_post' by explaining that it returns a media ID for that purpose.

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 when to use: before creating a publishing post that needs media. It explicitly mentions the connection to 'create_publishing_post'. However, it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, though given no other upload tools, this is acceptable.

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