import_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses file size limits, mutual exclusivity of parameters, and the requirement of mimeType with data. It could mention error handling or authorization needs, but it is fairly transparent about the core 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 concise and structured, front-loading the purpose and then detailing modes. It is clear and efficient, though it could be slightly shorter without losing meaning.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the return value (including id) and covers the two usage modes. It is sufficient for an agent to use correctly, though it omits error handling and edge cases.

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?

The schema covers all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the two modes, mutual exclusivity, file size limits, and the meaning of the source enum, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: importing a file into the media library for attachment to posts. It distinguishes two modes (URL and inline) and mentions the return value (id for create_post), which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_post 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: URL mode for files up to 200MB with HTTPS links, inline mode for base64 data up to 3MB. It also specifies that exactly one of url or data must be provided and advises using URL mode for files over 3MB.

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