codivupload-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get Media Details' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response includes (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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 'Get Media Details', a single phrase that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action, though at the expense of detail, making it structurally optimal for brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns detailed media information. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly beyond basic parameter input.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The UUID of the media asset'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without description enhancement.

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 'Get Media Details' restates the tool name 'get_agency_media_id' in slightly different words, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'Media Details', but lacks specificity about what 'Media Details' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_agency_media' (which likely lists media) or 'uploadmedia'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'get_agency_media' (likely for listing media) and 'delete_agency_media_id' (for deletion), but the description does not clarify distinctions, prerequisites, or contextual usage scenarios.

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