refresh_media

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the source of refresh (disk) but does not mention side effects, failure modes (e.g., file missing), or whether edits/proxies are affected. This is a basic disclosure but insufficient for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 one sentence with no fluff, efficiently conveying the core action and source. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention behavior when the file is missing or if it affects existing metadata, which would add robustness. Still, it adequately covers the essential purpose.

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 sole parameter 'projectItemId' is adequately described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Refreshes the media for a project item, reloading it from disk.' It specifies the verb (refresh) and the target (project item), and distinguishes from siblings like import_media or relink_media by the reload-from-disk intent.

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 description implies usage: when media may be out of sync with the disk or needs reloading. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it. However, it could have explicitly pointed to relink_media or check_offline_media for alternative scenarios.

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