public_register_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait not present in annotations – that the call spends ElevenLabs credits – but says nothing about the non-idempotent retry hazard or what registration actually mutates.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and the cost consequence, so there is no waste. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification for a non-idempotent 8-parameter mutation rather than being efficiently concise.

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 mutating tool with 8 parameters, two media-source modes, conditional requirements, and no output schema, the description should at least state that media is attached to an order and what a successful registration yields. It omits all of that, leaving only the credit-cost note.

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% across all 8 parameters, including the three mutually exclusive media source options and the conditional media_url_filename/media_url_content_type requirements, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning.

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 verb+resource pair 'Register Media' names the action but leaves the resource vague – register media to what, and for which container? The schema reveals it attaches media to an order_id, but the description never says so, and it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like public_upload_order_item or public_get_media_info.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The only contextual hint is that it consumes credits, which is a cost note rather than usage routing. The agent has to infer everything from the schema and sibling names.

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