upload_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses authentication requirements, specific 400 error codes, and an S3 retry condition, but it omits mutation side effects, supported file formats, size limits, and how the required upload token is obtained.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then cleanly separated into endpoint, error codes, and authentication. Every section is relevant to invoking the tool correctly, with no wasted prose.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate at a minimum: it covers the endpoint, errors, and auth. However, for an upload tool it leaves important gaps around token prerequisites, accepted formats, and response behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already names all three parameters and gives basic descriptions. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics such as format constraints, token acquisition, or requiredness, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a Media image file,' and adds the exact endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_media_upload or get_media.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites such as obtaining an upload token via a sibling tool. It mentions authentication and errors but not the workflow or selection context.

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