Upload or Import Media from a local file

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

Annotations already declare destructive=false... rather destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context on top: the mandatory confirm=true, and that the action may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. It stops short of describing limits or failure modes, but the added disclosure is substantive.

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-loads the purpose, then two clean bullets for the two modes, then the confirm requirement and risk note. No filler sentences; every line carries information. Only minor redundancy between the intro sentence and the bullets.

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 9-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers modes, confirmation, and side effects but omits sibling differentiation and size/format constraints (e.g. the 250 MiB limit) that matter for correct invocation. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 documents every parameter; baseline is 3. The description adds a mode-to-parameter mapping (file for local, url for web), which is helpful, but it references a `url` parameter that does not exist anywhere in the input schema, slightly muddying rather than clarifying semantics.

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 ('upload media files from a local system or import from a web URL') that an agent can act on. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings 'upload_media' and 'import_media_from_url', leaving real ambiguity about when this tool is the right one.

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?

Offers useful in-tool guidance on which transport/parameter mode to use (multipart/form-data with `file` vs form-urlencoded with `url`), which is more than nothing. But it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling upload/import tools, so the selection decision between siblings is left to inference.

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