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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description reinforces what can be modified but adds no context beyond that — no note on overwrite/clear semantics, reversibility, or auth, though the schema descriptions do cover null-clearing. Adequate but thin.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action list and closed by the key precondition. No filler; every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is nearly complete for a single-asset mutation tool, with the only mild gap being no routing guidance among the many sibling media/editor tools.

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 schema already documents every parameter in more detail (e.g. 'null to clear it', UUID formats, maxLength). The description only echoes the field names, adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb (update) and resource (media asset) and enumerates the four concrete mutations supported: rename, edit description, move to folder, change B-roll eligibility. This clearly distinguishes it from read-side siblings like media_assets_get and media_list.

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?

It states a real precondition ('Provide at least one of name, description, folderId, or allowUsingAsBroll'), which tells the agent how to invoke it validly. However it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing against alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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