Relink Media

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the operational hazard (can block/wedge Premiere indefinitely, even for an existing file on 26.5.2), the fail-safe default (refuses unless opted in) and the trust limitation (result is never reported as verified). Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false; the description supplies the real risk profile.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences ordered as hazard, recommended alternative, then default behavior and caveat; no filler. Slightly dense in the opening clause but every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description supplies the safety posture, default refusal, override flag and the verification gap, which is everything an agent needs to call this hazardous legacy route correctly.

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 item_id, new_path and allow_unsafe_cep_relink are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the semantics of the safety flag (must be explicitly true, default refusal), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already carries.

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 identifies the operation as the legacy CEP relink route and immediately contrasts it with the preferred relink_offline_media_uxp, so an agent can separate the two without opening a schema. The core verb/resource is implicit ('Legacy CEP relink...') rather than stated in a leading 'Relinks item_id to new_path' clause, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

Explicit when-not guidance: prefer relink_offline_media_uxp because it checks capability and reads the result back. It further states this route refuses by default and only proceeds when allow_unsafe_cep_relink is explicitly true, giving a clear conditional path for both the normal and override cases.

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