relink_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation without revealing side effects (e.g., does it update all references? verify file existence? require write permissions?). This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain what happens on success/failure, or that one should check offline status first (as hinted by sibling 'check_offline_media'). For a tool that modifies project state, this is insufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly ('Node ID or name', 'New file path'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond contextualizing them as belonging to an offline media item, which is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Relink an offline media item to a new file path'), specifying the verb ('relink') and the resource ('offline media item'). It distinguishes from similar siblings like 'replace_clip_media' by focusing on relinking an offline item, but could be sharper about what 'relink' entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'replace_clip_media', 'refresh_media'). There is no mention of prerequisites like checking if the file exists or if the item is indeed offline. The description implies a scenario but doesn't explicitly state it.

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