Upload media

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the tool returns the media row whose id is referenced by posts via mediaIds. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full safety/behavior burden and does not disclose auth requirements, side effects, limitations, or error conditions.

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 primary action is front-loaded, the source options are stated clearly, and the return value is given in the second sentence. Every line earns its place.

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 covers the core action, source inputs, and return value, which is helpful. But it lacks important invocation details such as whether one of url/path is required, mediaType expectations, or server-side constraints like size or accessibility. Given no annotations and no output schema, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

The description rephrases the url/path distinction already present in the schema and implies an 'or' relationship between the two source types, but does not explicitly state that one is required or clarify mediaType semantics. With 67% schema coverage, the description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the missing mediaType description.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Upload media') and adds source modes ('public URL or local file path'), clearly distinguishing it from media siblings like list_media, get_media, and delete_media. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies 'use this when you need to upload media' but does not route the agent away from other media tools or explain when not to use it.

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