process_media

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, it explains idempotency via content hash, instant returns, and amend re-runs that only diarize. It discloses file-locality, lazy serving from disk, audio-only limitations (frame tools will error), and installation error messages, which are not implied by annotations.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded summary, a dedicated 'When NOT to use' section, and a long list of examples. While most examples add distinct value, the message about diarize=true for meetings is repeated several times, making it somewhat verbose—still, it earns a high score for clear organization.

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?

Covers workflow end-to-end: input constraints, processing steps, return values, idempotency, error handling, optional parameters, and post-success handoff to sibling tools. The output schema exists, so return values are not over-explained, but the description still provides the necessary operational context.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose through examples: path, model='large-v3-turbo', diarize=true for multi-person, vocabulary for names/jargon, num_speakers for accuracy, recorded_at with force=true for wall-clock null, and language for garbled transcripts. It clarifies behavior like force, defaults, and error conditions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ingest a LOCAL video or audio file and make it queryable' and enumerates the full processing pipeline (validate, transcribe, keyframes, OCR, wall-clock, diarization). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing re-fetching to retrieval tools and frame extraction to extract_frame/get_frames.

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?

Provides an explicit 'When NOT to use' section and multiple anti-examples ('never process_media again' for frames, URL unsupported). It gives concrete selection guidance: use retrieval tools for already-processed data, use get_frames for frames, and includes decision rules for diarize/model when analyzing meetings.

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