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

Annotations already indicate mutation and idempotency, so the description adds valuable behavioral detail: max 10 items, sequential processing, supported node types, and asset reusability. No contradiction with annotations is present, and these details go beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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?

Every sentence adds a distinct, useful fact: primary action, batch behavior, supported node types, and reusability. The description is compact, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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 tool with three well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites, constraints, and edge-case guidance needed to invoke it correctly. The fit_media caveat about render attachments is handled inside the schema, and the tool-level description supplies the remaining operational context.

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 structured parameter descriptions already document item, node_id, media_asset_id, fit_media, and show_captions thoroughly. The natural-language description mostly restates the items array behavior and max 10 constraint, adding little beyond the schema.

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 action ('Attach'), the resource ('existing workspace media asset'), and the target ('one or more nodes'), while also naming the source tool and supported node types. This separates it from siblings like upload_media_asset and delete_node_media without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context by specifying that the asset must come from clipform_upload_media_asset and explicitly limits usage to node types supporting media. It lacks an explicit statement about when to use a different tool (e.g., deleting or fetching node media), but the guidance is strong enough for correct routing.

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