putmedia

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'update' without specifying if it is a full replacement (PUT semantics) or partial update, nor does it mention idempotency or whether omitted fields are reset.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks important behavioral details. It is adequately structured but could be expanded to improve clarity.

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 nested object and no output schema, the description should explain more about the update behavior (e.g., whether all fields are required, what happens to omitted fields). It feels incomplete for a PUT operation.

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 each parameter has a description. However, the requestBody description is generic ('Media request model. Used for creating and updating media'), adding minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 'Update media asset properties' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating an update operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool 'patchmedia', which might have similar purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patchmedia or postmedia. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as requiring the media asset to exist.

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