postprocess

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that files are moved, credentials are reused from MEDUSA_URL/MEDUSA_API_KEY, and directory is interpreted by Medusa core rather than the Hermes container. This is meaningful trading beyond the input schema.

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 compact yet complete: purpose, action, use case, credential reuse, and the critical path caveat. The important warning is explicitly flagged with 'IMPORTANT', and no sentence is wasted.

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?

All four parameters are documented in schema, return shape is covered by output schema, and the free-text description supplies the missing behavioral and practical context: when to use, the container-path requirement, and the file-moving consequence. Nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value for the key parameter by clarifying that directory must be the container-side path, and it connects the use case to the failed/auto-post-process flow, which maps to process_type.

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?

Description uses a specific verb-resource pair and explains the actual operation: scan a directory and move matched episodes into show folders. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools, none of which focus on Medusa post-processing.

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 gives an explicit scenario: clear files stranded in staging after a failed auto-post-process, with a concrete example. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use or name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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