ruddur_update_media_asset

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds that the server accepts aliases and requires media.manage scope, but it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, nor any side effects on the media file itself, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the alias behavior and scope requirement without extraneous text, making it highly concise and readable.

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 a flexible body schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, aliases, and scope, but does not specify the return value or error behavior. The schema's body description includes a confusing reference to 'waypoint payloads' that is not clarified by the tool description, creating a minor contextual gap.

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?

The input schema's body is a generic object/array/string with a description about natural fields and waypoint payloads, but the tool description enriches this by listing concrete aliases (title/name, mimeType/contentType, size/fileSize, identifiers). This helps an agent know exactly which fields to pass for a media asset update, compensating for the schema's lack of media-specific field enumeration.

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 'Update creator media metadata' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_media_assets or delete_media_asset. It also hints at acceptable field aliases, reinforcing the update scope.

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 implies usage for modifying media metadata but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like attach/detach/delete. It does include a scope requirement (media.manage), which is a useful prerequisite, but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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