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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description accurately describes the write behavior but adds no extra context beyond what the annotations imply (e.g., side effects, reversibility, idempotency details). No contradiction.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence lists the actions, followed by the required at-least-one condition. It is front-loaded, contains no fluff, and every word earns its place.

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 6-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the tool's purpose and the key usage constraint. It implicitly conveys partial update semantics but could be slightly more explicit about that. Overall, sufficient for agent invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds the critical constraint that at least one of name, description, folderId, or allowUsingAsBroll must be provided, which is not enforced in the schema. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's field 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 tool updates a single media asset with specific actions: rename, edit description, move to folder, or change B-roll eligibility. It is unambiguous and differentiates from read-only sibling tools like media_assets_get or media_assets_preview.

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 (updating a media asset) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The instruction to provide at least one of the updatable fields is a constraint, not a comparison to siblings.

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