Media host status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful routing behavior: Facebook-Login accounts upload videos directly to Meta while images always use the host, which is context beyond the annotations. It does not cover return shape or failure modes, so not 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the host options are compactly enumerated. The opening is slightly indirect for a status tool, but overall well-structured.

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-optional-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context about host modes and routing exceptions. It could state what the status result contains, but the core selection and invocation context is present.

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% and the host parameter is documented, but the description adds meaning to each enum value (Cloudflare quick tunnel, S3/R2/B2 bucket, Azure Blob Storage) beyond the schema's bare enum. That is valuable semantic enrichment.

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 identifies the resource (media hosting for local files reaching Instagram) and the three host modes, while the name/title supply the status verb. It does not explicitly contrast with prepare_media or publish_* siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; it explains host types but not when an agent should call this status tool versus prepare_media or publish_* tools. Usage is only implied by 'whether it works'.

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