sb_media_upload

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

Annotations establish a non-read-only, non-destructive operation; the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond them by explaining the return value (URL), accepted input sources, the query/pick search behavior, and the ability to upload several images at once. It does not explain edge effects like dry_run or failure modes, but it remains consistent with the annotated safety profile.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core purpose and then add the necessary source modes and search behavior. There is no filler or repetition; every clause earns its place, and the most important usage guidance is stated early.

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 a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a strong overall mental model: what it does, what it returns for media, the input modes, and batching behavior. However, it leaves several parameters unexplained and does not describe what dry_run or folder_id/site_id do, so it is not fully complete at the invocation level.

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 only 44%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies the key mode semantics (path vs URL vs query+pick, and pick accepting one or many), but it never explains name, dry_run, site_id, folder_id, or orientation. Thus it partially closes the coverage gap but does not fully compensate for the undisclosed parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('put an image into the media library'), the resource, and the key output ('get its URL back'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the downstream tool sb_set and declaring 'The only way to add an image', so an agent can identify it confidently.

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 tells an agent when to use it: to add an image, it takes either a local path, a URL, or a search/query flow. It additionally explains how query and pick work together, and 'The only way to add an image' strongly signals it over alternative siblings. It lacks explicit conditions for when to avoid it, but the guidance is otherwise clear.

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