plan_media_upgrade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It gestures at safety ('safely', 'controlled batch', 'enforcing storage policies') but never clarifies whether the tool mutates state or only produces a plan, what happens on execution, or what constraints (permissions, reversibility) apply.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with the verb leading and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns and how a 'plan' relates to execution, and it does not. The core ambiguity of whether this only evaluates/schedules or actually performs the upgrade is left unresolved for a tool whose name centers on planning.

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%, so all three parameters (mediaType, maxBatchSize, targetResolution) are already documented with enums and bounds in the schema. The description adds only the vague phrase 'specified media classes', providing no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('schedules a controlled batch upgrade for specified media classes'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However it does not distinguish the tool from related siblings like find_series_by_quality or diagnose_missing_media, leaving the agent to infer the planning/evaluation angle.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no routing to or away from any sibling tool. The phrase 'for specified media classes' implies scope but gives the agent no condition under which this tool should be chosen over others.

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