iva_conference_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists operations without explaining side effects, permissions, destructive actions, confirmation requirements, or response behavior. The mention of 'Clients API v2.28.12' is a version note, not behavioral transparency.

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 a single compact sentence that packs the full operation list with minimal waste. It uses a readable grouped structure (get/report/request/revoke/set). It could be slightly better structured as bullets, but for a 12-action tool it remains efficient and scannable.

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 high complexity — 12 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema — the description is too thin. It does not map parameters to actions, explain which operations are destructive or require confirmation, or describe expected outcomes. An agent could guess from parameter names, but the description leaves too much unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the action parameter itself has detailed bilingual per-operation descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies. The nested 'Data' objects are vaguely described, but this is a schema limitation, not a description gap.

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 enumerates the tool's operations: get media/room info, report state, request/revoke attention, report equipment, and multiple settings. It identifies the resource domain ('IVA conference media') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by scope. However, because it is a multi-action tool, it lacks a single specific verb, so it doesn't reach 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many conference-related siblings (iva_conference, iva_conference_session, iva_conference_presence_control, etc.). The domain is implied by the name and the operation list, but no exclusions or alternative references are given.

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