Upload or Import Media

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it states that confirm=true is required for the mutation and warns that the action 'may share access, notify people or incur provider charges.' These side-effect disclosures go beyond what the annotations provide, though it does not cover permission requirements or encoding behavior.

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 core purpose and then uses two concise bullets to differentiate the upload and import modes. The final sentence about confirm and side effects is also compact. There is a small amount of redundancy in restating 'upload from local system' and 'import from web URL' after the first clause, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and the presence of near-identical sibling tools, the description is only partially complete. It covers content types, confirm requirements, and side effects, but it omits any guidance on how this tool differs from upload_media_file and import_media_from_url, and does not address the relationship between the mutually exclusive `payload`, `payload_file`, and body flags. The schema descriptions help, but the description should do more for a tool this complex.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying content-type requirements that route the agent to either the `file` parameter (multipart/form-data) or the `url` parameter (application/x-www-form-urlencoded), which are not expressed in the schema itself. It does not, however, clarify the interaction between `payload`, `payload_file`, and body flags.

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+resource: 'upload media files from a local system or import from a web URL.' An agent can tell what the tool does, but the description does not differentiate it from the sibling tools upload_media_file and import_media_from_url, which appear to cover the same two modes. No explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides implied usage: use multipart/form-data for local uploads and application/x-www-form-urlencoded for web imports, and notes confirm=true is required for the mutation. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus the dedicated siblings upload_media_file or import_media_from_url, nor does it offer any when-not guidance. The context is useful but incomplete.

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