Re-analyze Media

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

Annotations provide no hints (readOnlyHint false, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It states 'Re-run AI analysis' indicating mutation but lacks details on side effects (e.g., does it overwrite previous analysis? async behavior? cost implications?). Some context is added about 'latest models' but not enough for full 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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose and a brief instruction. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing flags) but overall efficient and clear.

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 has 5 parameters (1 required), an output schema, and high schema coverage, the description provides basic completeness for purpose and flag usage. However, for a mutation tool, more details on behavioral expectations (e.g., async, data retention) would improve completeness.

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 all parameters are documented. The description reinforces that boolean parameters are flags but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, a baseline score of 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 ('Re-run AI analysis') and resource ('media file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'reanalyze_text' and other media-related tools. It explicitly mentions using 'latest models' and the ability to choose which parts via flags.

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 tells the user to 'choose which parts to re-run via the flags below,' implying use of boolean parameters. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., media must already be analyzed), or when not to use this tool. This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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