office_media_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose valuable format-specific quirks: video plays on pptx/odp slides and in an odt frame, a docx only stores the video plus a link, and slide indices are 1-based for presentations but sheet numbers for xlsx. It omits overwrite semantics, permission/auth needs, and failure modes for an insert operation.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one line, then layers format and parameter notes with no filler prose. It is a bit dense and could tighten the format enumeration, but every sentence carries usable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the operation, target formats, indexing scheme, and sizing. It falls short on error/overwrite behavior and permission requirements for a write operation with no annotations backing it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does well: it tells the agent that path and media are workspace-relative, that slide is 1-based for presentations and a sheet number for xlsx, and that width_cm/height_cm set frame size. Only the default values (12 / 6.8 cm) and accepted media file formats are left unstated.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: 'Insert a workspace image or video into an office document.' This clearly distinguishes it from every sibling (list/read/replace/append/format/slide/sheet/chart/table/create), none of which cover media insertion.

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?

Usage is only implied through the format-support notes (images go into docx/xlsx/pptx/odt/ods/odp; video plays on pptx/odp slides and odt frames). There is no explicit when-to-use versus office_chart_tool, office_slide_tool, or office_create_tool, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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