patch_items_by_id_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful guidance that the request body fields should be discovered via GET or /schema, which implies the body is dynamic and not fully enumerable. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing media, but the annotations cover the core behavioral traits.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and endpoint. The Args section is minimal but useful, and the instruction to consult GET or /schema is a practical pointer. It earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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 open-world body schema and the presence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable starting point but leaves the agent to discover the actual media fields externally. It does not mention whether the update is partial or full replacement, nor any constraints on the body. For a PATCH operation with an opaque body, more context would be valuable.

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 0%, and the description only names the two parameters ('id' and 'body') without adding meaning beyond the schema. The body parameter is an open object with additionalProperties: true, and the description's advice to read GET or /schema is the only semantic help. This partially compensates but does not fully explain what 'media' fields are expected or how they map to the resource.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update items media' with the endpoint PATCH /api/items/{id}/media. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like patch_items_by_id_cover and patch_items_by_id_tracks by focusing on 'media' as the target, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 implies usage by showing the HTTP method and path, and instructs the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first to see expected fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch_items_by_id_cover or patch_items_by_id_tracks, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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