Upload media

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive write, and the description is consistent with that, adding that remote URLs must be public and that local paths are read. However, with zero required parameters it never clarifies whether url and path are mutually exclusive or whether at least one must be supplied, nor does it mention size/format limits or failure behavior for an open-world upload.

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: the first front-loads the action and its input modes, the second explains the return value and downstream linkage. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

It covers the return value in lieu of an output schema, which is valuable, but for an open-world write tool with no required parameters and 67% schema coverage, the missing guidance on url/path exclusivity and upload constraints leaves real gaps an agent would hit.

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 only 67% (mediaType has an enum but no description), and the description compensates by spelling out that paths cover image/video/PDF, which maps onto the image/video/document enum. The 'or' phrasing also implies the url-path split, though mutual exclusivity is left implicit.

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 and resource (upload media) plus the two input modes (public URL, local file) and the return shape (a media row whose id posts reference via mediaIds). The action is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling read/delete tools like get_media, list_media, and delete_media, though it doesn't call those out explicitly.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is how you get a media id into the system so it can be referenced in posts via mediaIds, which is the real trigger for calling it. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. use get_media/list_media for existing assets) or prerequisites, so it isn't a full when/when-not guide.

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