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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the matching mechanism and the mutable fields, but omits side effects such as the default-true alsoSetPrimaryMediaId behavior, permission requirements, and whether the change is reversible or idempotent.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the matching semantics are front-loaded and the changeable fields follow. Slightly compressed, but nothing is wasted.

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 ten-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is serviceable but thin: it never warns about the alsoSetPrimaryMediaId side effect or confirm whether unspecified fields are preserved. The rich schema covers parameters, but behavioral context is under-supplied.

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 schema already documents all ten parameters, including the match-vs-replacement distinction (mediaId/newMediaId, role/newRole). The description's field list ('role, order, mediaId, and version override') largely restates schema content, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Update a specific shot media ref') and clarifies the matching semantics (mediaId plus optional role). It is clearly distinguishable from add_shot_media_ref and delete_shot_media_ref by the 'update' verb, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'by matching mediaId and optional role' phrasing implies how to target an existing ref, which is useful implied usage. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no pointer to the add/delete siblings for the create/remove cases.

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