ruddur_create_media_transform

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

Annotations already indicate create semantics (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true). The description adds the required scope 'media.manage' and the alias acceptance behavior, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, return behavior, or what happens with duplicates, and it does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides essential alias and scope information. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has a flexible body schema and no output schema, so the description carries significant responsibility. It covers scope and aliases, but omits any explanation of what a media transform is, how it differs from a media upload, or what the return value looks like. The schema and annotations fill some gaps, but the overall definition leaves questions for an agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful information about accepted media aliases (title/name, mimeType/contentType, size/fileSize, identifiers), which helps an agent understand how to construct the body beyond the generic schema. This extra guidance brings it above baseline.

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 clearly states the action 'Create or register' and the resource 'media transform', which is distinct from siblings like ruddur_create_media_upload or ruddur_create_heading. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other media tools or define what a media transform is, so it misses the highest mark.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the required scope, but does not mention situations where this tool is appropriate or when to prefer another tool (e.g., upload vs transform).

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