Report a media use

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: the call is an external report to the source, KLIPY counts uses via its share trigger, and one call is expected per inserted KLIPY result. It does not cover failure behavior or rate limits, but the core behavioral model is disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the action, then gives the KLIPY requirement, call frequency, id format, auto-report exception, and provider behavior. It is compact despite covering multiple edge cases, and no sentence is redundant.

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 full schema description coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description fills the remaining gaps: why the call exists, how often to call it, which provider matters, and which alternative code paths already report automatically. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents provider, id, and query. The description still adds semantic value by explaining that the id is a result id like "gifs/<slug>" and that only the KLIPY provider matters, with other providers accepted and ignored. The optional query parameter is not discussed in the description, keeping this just below the top score.

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 states a specific action: reporting a media result's use back to its source, with KLIPY explicitly named as the provider whose share trigger depends on it. It also distinguishes this tool from slide_add/slide_update, which auto-report KLIPY results from the current session. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and when it applies.

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?

It explicitly says to call once for every KLIPY result inserted, gives the required identifier shape, and states the exception: inserts through slide_add/slide_update are already reported automatically. It also says other providers need nothing, which prevents unnecessary calls. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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