protect_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's an asynchronous operation (returns job_id, requires polling with check_job), accepts multiple input formats (URL, base64, or text), automatically selects algorithms, and has different performance characteristics for protection levels. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers the essential workflow.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key usage details and workflow information. Every sentence earns its place: first states what it does, second explains the simplicity vs alternatives, third specifies input options, fourth explains the asynchronous nature. Zero waste, appropriately sized.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the asynchronous workflow, input options, and comparison to alternatives. It covers the essential context an agent needs to use the tool correctly, though it could benefit from mentioning authentication requirements or error handling scenarios given the complexity.

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 all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about parameter usage ('Provide either a public media_url, base64 media, or text content') and the level parameter ('standard (fast, good protection) or maximum (slower, strongest protection)'), but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('protect media') and resource ('media'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling 'run_algorithm' by noting it's 'simpler' and uses 'curated preset level'. This provides clear differentiation from alternatives.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('simpler than run_algorithm — just specify standard or maximum protection') and mentions an alternative ('run_algorithm'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to other siblings like 'register_media' or 'update_media' that might handle media differently.

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