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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics ('nur übergebene Felder werden geändert'), the fact that existing entry links survive the edit, the read-back 'verified' field in the response, the invalid-id error shape, and a permission-failure hint naming what must be enabled in Strapi. The destructiveHint=true annotation is not contradicted — the description merely clarifies that only supplied fields change.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then param notes, then return/permission behavior — a sensible order with no filler prose. It loses a point because file_id is documented twice with overlapping content (source tools, then numeric ID plus error), which is avoidable repetition.

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 five parameters, no schema descriptions and a destructive annotation, the definition covers purpose, partial-update semantics, parameter sourcing, error behavior, permission failure, and read-back verification. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing, even though an output schema already exists.

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 0%, but the description covers every parameter: file_id (numeric, its source tools, and the invalid_id error), workspace (customer slug, optional when there is only one workspace), and the three editable fields name/caption/alternative_text via the opening sentence. It even supplies editorial guidance and an example for alternative_text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: changing alt text, caption or file name in the Strapi media library, and immediately scopes it to images already used in entries (the link is preserved). It also explicitly separates itself from strapi_update_entry, which it says does not work for 'upload/files' (405).

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?

Tells the agent when this is the right tool (metadata edits on existing media, including in-use images) and names the alternative that fails, so the agent will not route around it. It also points to where a valid file_id comes from (strapi_list_media, strapi_upload_media, strapi_check_upload_status).

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