put_airmedia_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists error codes but does not explain their meaning, nor does it disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. The list of error codes without explanations is insufficient.

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 short but includes a long, unexplained list of error codes that may bloat the text. While the core sentence is concise, the error codes add unnecessary length without clear benefit, reducing effectiveness.

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?

Given the tool has only two optional parameters and an output schema exists, the description should at least explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial update, overwrite? effects of enabling/disabling). It does not provide enough context for safe usage, making it incomplete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only provides error codes, not parameter details. 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?

The description clearly states 'Update the current AirMediaConfig', specifying the action (update) and the resource (AirMediaConfig). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_airmedia_config (read) and other put_* tools for different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for appropriate use. It simply states the action without context.

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