add_media

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing exactly what gets written where, including that a video is decomposed into a frames directory plus a separate audio.wav. It does not cover overwrite behavior, supported formats/size limits, or failure modes, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact per-type breakdown. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects and follow-up workflow thoroughly. What is missing is modest but real: return value/confirmation behavior and any constraints on acceptable file types.

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 67%, so the schema already documents file and name. The description adds real meaning for name by showing it becomes the footage/<name>/ directory, but the project parameter is never explained and no format or validation details are added.

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 verb and resource: 'Bring the user's own file into a project,' then itemizes the outcome per media type (assets/ for images and audio, footage/<name>/ plus audio.wav for video). It is clearly distinguishable from write_file/read_file siblings, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by 'the user's own file' (as opposed to generated content), and it supplies useful downstream guidance on drawing frames via shared/footage.js and wiring sound through sound.json. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as write_file for text content.

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