ruddur_attach_media_asset

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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by noting the required OAuth scope (media.manage) and the server's acceptance of media aliases (title/name, mimeType/contentType, etc.), which indicates a flexible input behavior. It does not describe side effects or return values, but the annotations lower the burden, and the provided details are useful.

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, both purposeful. The first states the core action; the second adds the scope requirement and alias flexibility. No filler, no repetition of schema details. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the essentials: the action, the required auth scope, and the flexible input format. It does not explicitly enumerate all content types or prerequisites, but the alias list hints at headings/waypoints/listings, and sibling tools cover related operations. Adequate for an agent to select and begin invoking the tool correctly.

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?

While the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaning by explaining that the server accepts 'media aliases' and that users can pass 'natural Ruddur fields directly at the top level' instead of wrapping them in body. This is crucial for correctly constructing the request and goes beyond the generic schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pairing: 'Attach a media asset to Ruddur content.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_media_upload (uploading new media) and detach_media_asset (removing a relationship). The action and target are unambiguous.

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?

The description states what the tool does and mentions it requires scope media.manage, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., when to use attach vs. update vs. create). The context of 'attach' and the sibling tool names imply use cases, but there are no explicit when/when-not guidelines or named alternatives.

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