plan_media_upgrade

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'safely' and 'enforcing storage policies,' but does not clarify whether this tool mutates state by creating a persisted schedule, whether it is read-only, what its failure modes are, or whether it actually executes any upgrades.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and includes constraints like 'controlled' and 'enforcing storage policies' without wasting words.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns, whether a schedule is persisted, or how this planning step relates to execution siblings. An agent would still lack critical information needed to safely invoke and interpret the result.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds loose context with 'specified media classes' and 'batch,' which roughly map to mediaType and maxBatchSize, but it does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluates and safely schedules a controlled batch upgrade for specified media classes.' It clearly distinguishes itself from execution-focused siblings by emphasizing planning and scheduling rather than executing, and from status tools by naming the upgrade action.

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 phrasing implies this should be used when a batch upgrade needs to be planned and validated against storage policies before execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_next_job_step or update_job_status, leaving the selection logic mostly to inference.

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