import_media

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior by disclosing file size caps, format constraints, and the `source` hint. However, it omits details on side effects, authentication, or resource creation beyond 'importing', leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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?

Two sentences pack all critical information: purpose, modes, constraints, and a specific usage hint. No redundant phrases; every word adds value. Ideal structure.

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 no output schema, the description covers input parameters and usage well. It lacks mention of the result (e.g., created media object ID or status), but that is not strictly required. Overall sufficient for an import tool with moderate complexity.

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?

Adds meaning beyond the input schema by clarifying the relationship between parameters in the two modes (e.g., connecting `source: 'direct'` to base64, specifying `mimeType` requirement). For the non-described `name` and `source` parameters, the description provides useful context, though not exhaustive.

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?

Clearly states 'Import a file into the library' and distinguishes two modes (URL and base64), making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_media or delete_media.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use each mode: URL for direct downloads with caps, base64 for raw bytes from agent memory. Also specifies the required `source` value for base64 uploads, providing clear context for selection.

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