aism_media_upload

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, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by naming the required permission scope and pointing to host-enforced file-type/size rules. It still omits what the upload returns and what happens on success (attachment vs. library item).

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 the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Minor deduction: 'Host file-type/size rules' is terse enough to be ambiguous about what 'Host' refers to.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the file-source and permission constraints but leaves parameter semantics and post-upload behavior undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit when wiring up the call.

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 33% — post, title, caption, and alt_text have no descriptions anywhere. The description supplies no per-parameter meaning (e.g., that 'post' likely attaches the media to a content item, or what alt_text is used for), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a local file') and explicitly rules out the adjacent capability ('Does not download remote URLs'), which is the one real ambiguity an agent would have. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named aism_plugin_upload / aism_theme_upload siblings, but 'media:write' signals the resource domain.

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?

Implies when to use it (you have a local file, not a URL) and names a prerequisite capability ('media:write apply'), but gives no explicit condition for choosing this over the other upload tools or guidance on when a media upload is the wrong approach.

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