Upload an image or video

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: the security scope of local paths (must be absolute, only within server-permitted read directories, only works because the server is local) and the accepted format list. It doesn't mention rate limits, size caps, or whether an existing file is overwritten.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return value, then the source rules, then formats. Every sentence carries useful information, though the format enumeration and the server-locality caveat make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly focuses on inputs and behavior. It covers source rules and formats well, but says nothing about any upload size limits or what happens when a filename collides, minor gaps for a write tool.

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 defines source, filename, and id_organization. The description largely echoes the source semantics already in the schema and adds only the accepted-format constraint, so it does not meaningfully exceed the structured data.

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 ('Put an image or video into an organization's file library') and names the downstream consumer ('the id that create_publication consumes in files'), which distinguishes it from every sibling. An agent immediately knows this is the media-upload step preceding publication creation.

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?

Explains the context of use by tying the output to create_publication, making the workflow relationship explicit. It does not, however, state any when-not conditions (e.g. what to do if media is already hosted, or limits on size/count), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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