Upload an image or video

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation, and the description aligns by saying 'put into'. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: local paths only work on the user's own machine, only within allowed directories, and accepted formats are enumerated. It does not cover size limits or overwrite behavior, but the key environmental constraint is disclosed.

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 mostly tight and front-loaded with the main purpose, then constraints, then formats. Minor redundancy exists because the source path explanation is duplicated verbatim from the schema description, so not every sentence fully earns its place, but it remains compact and readable.

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?

Given the low parameter complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary selection and invocation details: purpose, accepted sources, local-file restrictions, and format allowlist. A bit more could be said about failure cases or size limits, but nothing critical is missing for basic correct use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by listing accepted media formats and explaining that the returned id is consumed by create_publication. It does not add much for filename or id_organization, but the source parameter gains extra constraints from the accepted-format list.

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 action and resource: 'Put an image or video into an organization's file library' and clearly identifies the returned artifact as the id that create_publication consumes. This differentiates it from the sibling list/read tools and ties it directly to the publication workflow.

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 provides clear context by explaining that the returned id is used by create_publication, implying when this tool should be used in a workflow. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use case is clear enough.

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