x_media_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals the async polling behavior and the field names to inspect (`processing_state`, `check_after_secs`). It adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not describe failure states or whether images require polling.

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 compact sentences carry the platform, action, resource, polling instruction, expected state, timing hint, and usage context. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only status tool with annotations and an output schema, the description fully equips an agent to poll correctly and attach media at the right time. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the single parameter is already documented as the media id returned by x_media_upload. The description only reiterates `media_id` in context and adds no format, lifecycle, or edge-case detail, so a 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?

Description names a specific action ('check'), a resource ('async processing state of an uploaded media'), and the identifier (`media_id`), and differentiates it from the upload tool by focusing on post-upload processing. The purpose is unmistakable even without the title.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call it: after upload, poll until `processing_state` is `succeeded`, using `check_after_secs` as the suggested interval, and before attaching media to a post. This contextual sequencing is actionable and complete.

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