zernio_validate_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states validation occurs but does not disclose if it is read-only, what happens on failure (returns errors?), or the scope of validations. Without annotations, the description lacks critical behavioral context.

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 14-word sentence, very concise and front-loaded. It earns its place but could be structured with more details (e.g., listed validations). Still, it avoids fluff.

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?

The tool is a validation tool with one param and no output schema. The description does not mention what the result looks like (e.g., success/failure, list of violations). For an agent to use it effectively, more context is needed (e.g., how to interpret validation results).

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 coverage is 100% (one required param 'mediaIds' with description). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 validates media files against platform requirements, specifying checks like file size, dimensions, format, duration. The verb 'validate' and resource 'media files' are explicit, and among sibling validate tools (e.g., validate_post, validate_subreddit), this one is uniquely for 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., upload_media, other validate tools). It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into a workflow (e.g., before upload). Usage is only implied.

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