medias_update_media_object

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description's burden is to add behavioral context. It merely says 'Update' without explaining what side effects occur, whether changes are reversible, what fields are mutable, or any authorization requirements. The description adds no value beyond the annotations and leaves important behavioral details unstated.

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 extremely short ('Update File/ Folder'), which is not conciseness but under-specification. It lacks any structure or front-loaded essential details. Every word is generic and fails to convey the tool's specific behavior. It is not helpful for an agent trying to understand the tool's use.

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 mutation tool with four parameters (two required) and no output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what happens if the id does not exist, whether the update is partial or full, or any limitations (e.g., only renaming). The agent is left to guess the exact semantics, making this inadequate for reliable 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a clear description (id, name, altId, altType). The description 'Update File/ Folder' does not add any semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 states a clear verb ('Update') and a resource ('File/ Folder'), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it does not specify what aspects can be updated (e.g., name, ownership) beyond what the schema implies, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'medias_bulk_update_media_objects' which obviously operates on multiple objects. The phrasing is generic and could apply to any update operation.

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?

There is absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'medias_bulk_update_media_objects' or 'medias_create_media_folder'. The description provides no context about scenarios (e.g., renaming a single file vs bulk rename) or prerequisites (e.g., the object must already exist). An agent has to infer everything from the name and schema.

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