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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=false; the description adds the crucial consequence that renaming changes the asset's name in every project that uses it, which an agent could not infer from annotations or schema. It does not state what happens if neither name nor favorite is supplied, but the key side-effect is disclosed.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary action and packs the important scope caveat inline with no redundant wording.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the actions and their scoping but omits whether both fields can be set in one call and what the response or failure mode looks like. Adequate, with a clear remaining gap.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: it clarifies that name is asset-scoped (global effect) while favorite is project-scoped. projectId's default is covered by the schema; only mediaId is left implicit as the obvious target identifier.

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 names a specific resource (a media item) and two concrete operations: renaming and favouriting. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as update_asset or tag_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 two supported actions imply when to reach for this tool, and the parenthetical notes the rename is asset-wide. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative for project-local renaming versus favouriting.

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