microcms_upload_media

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool requires media upload permissions and is available on specific plans, but does not mention idempotency, overwrite behavior, file size limits, or error handling. The description provides basic context but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a concise single paragraph of three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: main function, two methods, return value, permissions, and plan availability. No redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (microCMS asset URL) and input variations (fileData vs externalUrl). It also provides permission and plan context. Missing elements like error conditions or size limits prevent a perfect score, but overall it is thorough for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the two upload methods, clarifying that fileData requires fileName and mimeType, and that externalUrl is an alternative. This contextual synergy enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 'Upload media files to microCMS' using the Management API. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'microcms_get_media' and 'microcms_delete_media' by focusing on creation/upload. The two methods and return value (microCMS asset URL) are explicitly mentioned.

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?

While the description outlines two upload methods (fileData vs external URL) and mentions required permissions and plan limitations, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'microcms_get_media' or 'microcms_delete_media'. The context is sufficient but not tailored.

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