store_media_file

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

The description discloses that the tool stores a file and returns the filename, but it does not mention the 'delete_existing' parameter which defaults to true and could overwrite existing files. No annotations are provided. Since the parameter has potential destructive behavior (overwriting) and is not explained, the description falls short of full transparency beyond basic functionality.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, usage, parameter constraints, and return value. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action and examples. No redundant or vague language.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (unknown content), the description covers the main purpose and parameter constraints adequately. However, it omits details about the 'delete_existing' behavior and any prerequisites (e.g., collection must be open). The examples and return value hint are helpful. For a simple media storage tool, it is nearly complete but missing one key aspect.

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 well by explaining the three source options (path, url, data_b64) and the constraint to provide exactly one. It also clarifies the return value. However, it does not describe the 'delete_existing' parameter or the precise role of the required 'filename' (e.g., if it should be just a name or include path). Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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') and the resource ('a media file'), specifying it goes into the collection's media folder. It provides concrete usage examples (e.g., '[sound:word.mp3]') which make the purpose immediately clear. The tool is well-differentiated from sibling tools like delete_media_file, retrieve_media_file, and list_media_files.

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 explains when to use the tool (to store media for note referencing) and the key constraint to 'Provide exactly one source' (path, URL, or base64). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like retrieve_media_file for retrieval. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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