store_media_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the file is stored 'directly from local disk', implying a read from the local filesystem, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing media with the same name is overwritten, whether Anki needs to be running, or what permissions are required). For a write operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and destination. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification; still, for conciseness and structure, it earns a 4.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and the description is minimal, the overall context is incomplete. The agent lacks critical details such as error handling, overwrite behavior, naming rules, or whether the targeted media storage is already accessible. A simple tool like this still needs more behavioral context to be called correctly in varied scenarios.

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 description does not mention either parameter (source_path or target_name) at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the raw schema names. The agent is left to infer the semantics of 'source_path' and 'target_name' purely from their names, without clarification on formats, constraints, or defaults. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of 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 clearly states the action (store), the resource (media file), the source (local disk), and the destination (Anki's media storage). It names specific media types (image, diagram, audio) and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools that deal with decks, notes, or tags. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. While it is clear this is the only media-storage tool among siblings, the lack of explicit context or routing leaves the agent without criteria for when to choose it. No alternatives are named or contrasted.

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