Upload media

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds two things annotations cannot convey: the return value (a media asset with an id) and the quota side effect that each upload counts against the workspace's monthly upload quota. It omits size/format limits and failure modes, keeping it below a 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?

Three short sentences with no filler: capability first, downstream usage second, cost/limit last. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs before calling.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does the work of explaining the return (media asset, use its id) plus the quota constraint. For a three-parameter upload tool with reasonable annotation coverage, that is close to sufficient; supported file formats, size caps, and error behavior are the notable remaining gaps.

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%: source and contentType are documented in the schema, and the description's source options largely restate the schema text. fileName has no description in either place and is not addressed, so the description does not compensate for the remaining coverage gap, but it also adds nothing misleading.

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 asset) and enumerates the accepted source forms: local path, http(s) URL, data: URL. It also positions the tool relative to create_post by explaining where the returned id goes, so an agent can separate it from post-creation siblings without opening a 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 usage chain: call this first, then pass the returned id in create_post mediaAssetIds. That is strong implied when-to-use guidance for the create_post workflow. It stops short of explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to re-upload vs. reuse an existing asset from list_media).

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