vast_create_linear_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action ('Create a new VAST linear media') without revealing side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, response contents, or any constraints. This adds zero behavioral information beyond the name.

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 extremely concise (one sentence). However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not add structural or contextual value. It is not verbose, but it also does not earn its place by contributing new 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and sits in a complex ecosystem of VAST CRUD tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what linear media represents in the VAST hierarchy, how it differs from non-linear media, or what the result of creation is. The schema covers parameters but not operational context.

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%, with each parameter clearly documented (name, bitrate, duration, mime_type). The description itself adds no parameter-level details, but the schema already handles this, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the exact resource ('new VAST linear media'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like vast_update_linear_media, vast_delete_linear_media, and vast_create_non_linear_media by explicitly stating 'linear'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing campaign/placement), relationships to other objects, or situations favoring non-linear media. The usage is only implied by the tool name.

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