cassette_ingest_media

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions session_id generation but fails to specify whether the original file is moved/copied, permissions required, or other side effects. The description is insufficient for critical behavioral understanding.

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 fluff; the main purpose is stated first. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 11 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits explanation of many parameters, the ingestion workflow, and what the output contains. The presence of an output schema is not mentioned, so the description contributes little to overall completeness.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the description only minimally addresses 'source_path' and 'session_id'. The remaining 9 parameters (caption, chat_id, etc.) are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without critical semantic context.

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 tool ingests a trusted local media file from the active host project or configured media root, which matches the name and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'cassette_list_assets'.

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 the file must be trusted and local, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling or provide alternative usage contexts. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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