opentweet_upload_media

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses supported formats, size limits, and that the tool returns a URL for later use. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not contradict this; it simply doesn't elaborate on potential side effects, which is acceptable for an upload 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence introduces the tool's purpose and return value; the second lists constraints. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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 simple upload tool with one parameter, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and usage constraints. No gaps remain for the agent to make correct choices.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema description for file_path ('Absolute path to the image or video file on disk') without adding new meaning. It confirms the parameter type but does not exceed the schema's own 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 clearly states the tool uploads an image or video file for use in tweets, returns a URL for media_urls field, and specifies supported formats and size limits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_image or generate_video, which create media rather than upload existing files.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: before calling create_tweet or update_tweet to include media. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the instruction is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the prerequisite role.

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