Upload media by URL

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so mutation is expected. The description usefully adds that GHL fetches and hosts the URL content, which explains the upload mechanism. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, supported file types, or side effects beyond adding the file, so it adds only moderate behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 with no unnecessary filler. The action and key constraint are front-loaded, and both the use-case guidance and the exclusion for binary uploads earn their place. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple, with only three parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the key prerequisite (public URL) and the main alternative (UI for binary uploads). It does not describe the returned representation or what happens after upload, but for this low-complexity tool the description is mostly sufficient.

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 all three parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of fileUrl ('publicly reachable URL') but adds no new semantic detail about name or locationId beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Add a file to the Media Library by referencing a publicly reachable URL.' It also clarifies the mechanism ('GHL fetches and hosts it') and explicitly distinguishes this from raw binary uploads. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separates it from sibling media tools like list_media and 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 gives concrete use cases ('deliverables or talent photos already available at a link') and an explicit exclusion: 'For raw binary uploads use the GHL UI.' This clearly tells an agent when to use this tool and when not to, including a named alternative pathway.

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