upload_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the 90-day storage limit, 30MB file size limit, and Premium plan requirement. These are important operational constraints that aren't captured in the input schema.

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 perfectly sized at 4 sentences, each earning its place by covering different aspects: core functionality, input methods, storage policy, and requirements. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words on redundant information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering key behavioral constraints (storage duration, size limits, plan requirements). However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., media ID, URL, or success confirmation), which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the two input methods (URL vs base64) which aligns with the schema's documentation of fileUrl and base64Data, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's already in the parameter 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 specific action ('Upload'), resource ('image or video'), and destination ('to Ayrshare's media library'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_post or update_profile by focusing on media file handling rather than content creation or profile management.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (uploading media files to the library) and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle posts, profiles, or analytics. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives for different media-related tasks.

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