vast42_update_media_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Update' without explaining whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether unspecified fields are reset, or if permissions are required. It also does not indicate if the operation is destructive or safe.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise, though it borders on under-specification by essentially restating the tool name.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully contextualize the tool. It does not explain update semantics, how media files relate to other VAST entities like linears or companions, or what happens after the update.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (id, name, width, height, bitrate, mime_type), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Update') on a specific resource ('a VAST 4.2 media file'), which clearly conveys the tool's function. It distinguishes from create/get/delete media file tools by verb, though it adds little beyond the tool name and doesn't describe the media file's role.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vast42_create_media_file, vast42_delete_media_file, or vast_update_linear_media. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the media file must already exist) or exclusions.

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