relink_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. It discloses the bulk rewrite nature and that dry_run previews without writing. But it does not mention error handling, required permissions, or what happens if paths don't match. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 short sentences: first states purpose and method, second gives an example and highlights dry_run. Every sentence is informative and there is no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what the tool does, how to use it (with required params), and the dry_run option. It lacks details on output behavior (e.g., success message, error cases) but is sufficient for a straightforward file manipulation tool.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the prefix-based behavior and that find/replace are path prefixes, and that output_path defaults to a _relinked suffix. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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's purpose: bulk-rewriting media source paths to relink moved/renamed media folders. It specifies the verb 'relink', the resource 'media source paths', and the context 'without opening FCP'. The sibling tools are all about editing timeline clips or analyzing, so this is clearly distinct.

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 implies usage when media files have been moved or renamed and paths need updating. It mentions dry_run for preview, which guides safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to any alternative, though no direct sibling competes.

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