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. 'Create Media Asset' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient phrase ('Create Media Asset') that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for immediate comprehension.

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 that this is a mutation tool (creating media assets) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, expected inputs (though there are none), return values, or error handling. The agent would need to guess about the tool's full behavior and outcomes.

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, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate—it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 'Create Media Asset' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('Media Asset'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'uploadmedia' (which might handle file uploads) and 'post_agency_playlists' (which creates playlists), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name 'post_agency_media'.

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 like 'uploadmedia' or 'createpost', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for creating media assets. Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer appropriate scenarios from the tool name and sibling context alone.

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