workflowmoves_audit_campaign_media

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the material facts that this returns a *retained background job* requiring polling, that the base effect is a write, and that inference/download effects may be conditionally triggered. That is real behavior beyond the structured hints. It does not say whether the write is additive-only or can overwrite an existing output path, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, how it returns, and the effect/permission caveat. Front-loaded with the action and resource. Minor deduction for the slightly opaque 'Inspect danceflow_component' phrasing, which reads as an aside rather than a precise instruction.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the hardest part for an agent: the async job lifecycle and the permission/effect model. What remains thin is input shape (what a valid ledger/catalogue reference looks like) for a nested, two-parameter schema with only 50% description coverage.

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 50%: the permissions object carries its own description, but 'ledger', 'catalogue' and 'output' have only regex/length constraints and no semantic documentation. The description does hint at the permissions model ('Base effect flags: write', conditional inference/download), partially compensating, but it never explains what form ledger/catalogue take (paths, identifiers, formats) or what 'output' denotes.

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 names a specific verb ('Audit') and specific resources ('a media ledger and catalogue') and states the product ('a new provenance report'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like workflowmoves_audit_epk_evidence or workflowmoves_audit_epk_layout. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those sibling audits, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear follow-up routing ('poll danceflow_job_status', 'Inspect danceflow_component for conditional inference/download effects'), which is genuinely useful lifecycle guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this audit versus the other audit tools in the family, or any preconditions/exclusions, so selection guidance is only implied.

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