register_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a media object and outlines behavioral traits like different protection modes (e.g., watermarks, AI-training poison, adversarial hardening). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent, which are important 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise breakdown of modes and the return value. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with multiple protection modes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, modes, and return value, but lacks details on error cases, side effects, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the 'mode' parameter with detailed level definitions (register, search_ready, standard, maximum), which goes beyond the schema's enum list. It also clarifies the return value ('Returns the created media object'), compensating for the lack of output schema.

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 verb 'register and protect' with the resource 'media on the Sidearm platform', and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'protect_media' by specifying it's for initial registration with protection levels. It provides specific details about different modes, making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 detailing different protection modes (register, search_ready, standard, maximum), which helps guide when to use each level. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'protect_media' or 'update_media', or mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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