penpot_upload_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that url images are fetched directly by Penpot's server (nothing passes through the MCP server) and that isLocal defaults to true. It does not mention any destructive or irreversible effects, which is appropriate for a create operation.

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 multiple sentences but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses a clear structure: purpose, output usage, input methods, additional details. No wasted words.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the tool's input variations, output meaning, and integration with another tool (penpot_add_shapes). It does not explain error cases or limits, but is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, yet the description adds meaning for several key parameters: filePath, url, dataBase64 are explained as mutually exclusive sources; dataBase64 requirement for mtype is noted; fileId is contextualized as the target file; isLocal default is mentioned. Not all parameters (e.g., name) are elaborated, but the essential ones are covered.

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 clearly states the action ('Upload an image or other media asset'), the target resource ('to a Penpot file'), and the output ('return the media object metadata'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like penpot_add_shapes by detailing how the returned id is used as mediaId for image shapes.

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 explains the three mutually exclusive methods for providing media (filePath, url, dataBase64) and notes that dataBase64 requires mtype. It also clarifies the relationship to penpot_add_shapes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with other upload-like tools (none apparent in siblings).

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