Upload media

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the operation consumes the workspace's monthly upload quota, and it documents the return value and how it is consumed downstream. It does not cover size/format limits or quota-exhaustion behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and accepted inputs, followed by the return/consumption note and the quota caveat. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return contract (returns the media asset, use its id in create_post) and flags the quota cost. It omits practical constraints such as accepted formats, size limits, and failure modes, which a write/upload tool would ideally surface.

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 67%, so the schema already documents source and contentType. The description repeats the source formats verbatim from the schema and adds nothing about fileName or contentType inference, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds 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?

States a specific verb (Upload) and resource (image or video media) plus the three accepted source types. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming create_post as the downstream consumer of the returned media asset id.

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 defines a clear work-flow context: upload first, then pass the returned id in create_post mediaAssetIds. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., list_media/get_media for existing assets) or stating when not to re-upload, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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