cassette_ingest_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavior: 'Generates a cryptographically random session_id when omitted,' and restricts input to trusted local media. However, it does not mention side effects, whether the original file is moved/copied, authentication needs, or the response format.

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 sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the session_id generation note is a concise, valuable addition. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (11 params, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the meaning of optional metadata fields, the expected format of source_path, or the output behavior (although an output schema exists). An agent would likely need to guess at most parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only explains session_id (generated when omitted) and leaves the other 10 parameters, including required source_path, completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an 11-parameter tool.

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 ('Ingest'), the resource ('a trusted local media file'), and the source constraints ('active host project or an explicitly configured media root'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like cassette_list_assets or cassette_timeline.

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 implies when to use it (when you have a local media file from an allowed root) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool would be a better alternative. The source restriction is useful context, but alternatives are not mentioned.

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