store_media_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It mentions the store location and source constraints but lacks details on overwrite behavior, file format restrictions, or error handling. Basic transparency, but gaps remain.

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, front-loading purpose and usage, then detailing input constraints and output. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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's simplicity (four parameters, one required), the description covers input sources, usage examples, output, and storage context. It lacks explicit mention of idempotency or overwriting, but is otherwise complete for an agent's needs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: url (download), path (local), data_b64 (base64), and filename (stored name). It clarifies mutual exclusivity. More precise format details could improve it.

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 tool's purpose: storing a media file (image/audio) in the collection's media folder for reference in notes. It specifies the three source types and the output, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on notes, decks, or tags.

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 explicitly instructs to provide exactly one source (path, url, or data_b64) and notes the return value. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but no sibling tool performs a similar function, so this is sufficient.

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