Manage Controlled Media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that assets remain outside the Git worktree, enter normal memory only when attach is explicitly true, and that generation is disabled by default pending billing review. This goes well beyond the schema, though it doesn't enumerate per-action side effects or authentication requirements.

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 four focused sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: storage location, attach condition, CLI alternative, and generation gating. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Given the 11-parameter, 7-action tool with no output schema, the description provides essential policy context and the schema covers parameter details. It misses explicit per-action return behavior and authentication, but the combination of schema richness and behavioral warnings is adequate for most agent decision-making.

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 91%, so the parameters are already well documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds the important semantic that attach=true is the trigger for entering normal memory, but it doesn't otherwise explain parameter interactions or syntax.

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 set ('import, attachment, inspection, or MiniMax generation') tied to the 'controlled local media library', and the title 'Manage Controlled Media' reinforces the resource. This clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling memory/search tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the MCP tool versus the CLI: use the CLI for destructive removal, quota cleanup, and direct generation. It also explains the conditional enablement of MCP generation (MEMORIX_MCP_MEDIA_GENERATION=1, operator billing review), providing clear when/when-not guidance.

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