codivupload-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete Media Asset' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed for a destructive operation.

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 concise with 'Delete Media Asset'—a single phrase that front-loads the core action and resource. There's no wasted language, and it efficiently communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive nature (implied by 'delete'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Media Asset' entails, how deletion works, or what to expect post-operation. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 'Delete Media Asset' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (media asset), which is adequate for understanding the basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'deletepost' or 'deletewebhook' (e.g., agency-specific media vs. general posts/webhooks), making it somewhat vague in context.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'deletepost' and 'deletewebhook' available, it's unclear if this is for agency-specific media, general media, or another context. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for invocation.

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