requeue_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral context: it is a bulk write affecting every file in a library, and it explicitly discloses the major side effect that requeueing from table2 're-runs the whole library.' It does not mention reversibility, permissions, or load impact, but the whole-library consequence is the key trait an agent needs.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the endpoint parenthetical is tight. The table enumeration is long but earns its place because it is essential for choosing the correct source table. Slightly dense dash-delimited formatting, but every sentence carries information.

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 4-required-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation's scope, the endpoint, all table semantics, and the primary side effect. It lacks explicit warning about the operational weight of resubmitting an entire library and does not describe the response, but nothing required to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema: the full table1–6 taxonomy maps the entire value space of the 'table' parameter and clarifies how 'table' and 'process_status' interact ('requeueing from table2 back to the transcode queue re-runs the whole library'). This exceeds the schema's single example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Requeue every file of a library') with distinct purposes ('for transcoding or health checking'). The scope qualifier 'every file of a library' differentiates it from per-file operations like rescan_file or get_file among the siblings, and the API endpoint reinforces the specific operation.

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 table-mechanics explanation implies the usage scenario (re-running a whole library by moving table2 files back to the transcode queue), which is useful context. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use this tool versus bulk_update_files, scan_library, or rescan_file, leaving routing largely to inference.

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