Media Acquire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write pulling from the open world. The description adds 'bounded' (implying size limits) and 'exact byte identity' (implying verification), which are useful. But it omits auth requirements, where storage lives, and what a re-run over the same source does – notable gaps for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and there is only one well-documented parameter. Still, for a non-idempotent open-world write the description omits re-run behavior, storage semantics, and failure modes, leaving it thinner than the operation warrants.

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% and the single `source` parameter is fully documented with its accepted forms (local path, YouTube/Loom URL, HTTPS/HLS URL). 'Bounded' loosely hints at size constraints on the source but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

It names a verb ('Acquire') and resource ('media') and states the destination ('private owned storage'), so the general intent lands. However, qualifiers like 'bounded' and 'exact byte identity' are jargon that doesn't sharpen what actually happens, and it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as source_ingest or media_source_inspect.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative. With siblings like source_ingest and source_ingest_read in the set, an agent gets no signal for choosing this tool over them.

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