ig_publish_image_from_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining the two-step process: the file is uploaded unpublished to the linked Facebook Page, producing a public CDN URL that is then reused for the Instagram publication. This reveals side effects beyond the obvious 'publish' action, though it does not mention permissions, cleanup of the unpublished Page media, or failure modes.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides necessary procedural detail that would otherwise be missing. Every clause adds value.

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?

The description is substantively complete for an agent to invoke the tool: it identifies the action, the input is a local file, the role of page_id, and the internal upload-to-CDN-to-publish flow. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not required. Remaining gaps are permission/error context and explicit routing to sibling tools, but these are not critical for calling it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for page_id ('sur la Page Facebook liée') and file_path ('depuis un fichier local', uploaded via multipart), but it does not clarify ig_user_id or caption. Those are somewhat self-explanatory from their names and types, but the description is still incomplete for all four parameters.

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 action: 'Publie une image Instagram depuis un fichier local' — publish an Instagram image from a local file. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like ig_publish_image (which likely uses a hosted URL), ig_publish_carousel_from_files (carousel), and publish_page_photo_from_file (Facebook page photo) by specifying Instagram, single image, and local file.

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 the appropriate use case: use this when you have a local image file and want to publish it to Instagram. The second sentence clarifies that no external hosting is needed because the file is uploaded to the linked Facebook Page first. It does not explicitly name alternatives like ig_publish_image, so it stops short of a full 5.

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