edit-media-metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not disclose whether it is a partial update (only provided fields), whether all fields are required, what happens if mediaId is invalid, any permission requirements, or the shape of the response. For a mutation tool with no annotation safety hints, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb ('Update') and then lists the affected fields. There is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides almost no context beyond the core action. It does not mention response behavior, error conditions, whether it acts on a single image or multiple, or any side effects. The tool is underspecified for an agent to use it confidently in varied situations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond listing the fields (title, caption, alt text, description), which already appear in the schema. It does not clarify parameter relationships, constraints, or provide examples, so it adds marginal value over 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('media files') and enumerates the fields (title, caption, alt text, description), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like set-featured-image or optimize-media, so it misses the sibling-differentiation criterion for a 5.

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 you need to update media metadata) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools like update-post or delete-media. It is a minimal viable statement of usage context, but lacks the explicit 'when/when-not/alternatives' that would earn a 4 or 5.

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