Edit a media item (alias)

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

The description adds the deprecation/legacy status, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It discloses that the tool is an alias, implying identical behavior to update_media. It doesn't add mutation semantics, but annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the burden is partially lifted.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. The critical deprecation signal ('Legacy alias') is front-loaded, and the routing guidance follows immediately. Ideal brevity for a deprecated alias.

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 deprecated alias, the description is essentially complete: it identifies the tool, declares its deprecation, and routes to the preferred alternative. The fully-documented schema covers parameter usage. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds nothing about parameters or how they map to the underlying media update, which is acceptable given the schema carries the weight.

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 this is a legacy alias for update_media, which clearly identifies it as a media-edit operation and distinguishes it from the preferred sibling. However, it relies on the reader knowing what update_media does rather than stating the edit behavior itself; the title partially fills that gap.

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?

'Prefer update_media' gives explicit routing guidance to use the sibling instead. It doesn't describe any scenario where this alias would actually be invoked (backward-compatibility callers), but the deprecation instruction is clear enough for an agent to avoid it.

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