ig_check_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the output shape (errors, auto-fixable issues, warnings). However, it never clarifies that validation is read-only and does not itself apply fixes, nor what permissions or file-access constraints 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?

A single tightly packed sentence with the action front-loaded and the return contents appended. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, target formats, and an overview of what comes back. The only gap is the absence of any statement that it is non-destructive and read-only.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively documents both parameters: 'local media file' clarifies that `path` is a local filesystem path, and the parenthetical list (reel/story/feed/carousel/cover) enumerates the `as` values, matching the schema enum exactly.

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?

Specific verb ('Validate') plus resource ('local media file') and the target spec domain (Instagram). It enumerates the five target formats, so an agent knows exactly what kind of check this performs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 purpose implies usage (pre-publish validation), but nothing states when to call it versus, say, jumping straight to ig_publish, nor any prerequisites such as the file needing to exist locally. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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