Toggle Media Favorite

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds only that it's for 'quick access,' which is minimal additional behavioral context. It does not disclose potential side effects or permission requirements.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key action and object. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. However, it doesn't mention that multiple media IDs can be updated in one call (as per the array type) or any error conditions. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 describes both parameters. The description ('media files' and 'as favorites') adds no new meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline without extra value.

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 'Mark or unmark media files as favorites for quick access,' which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'toggle_prompt_favorite' and 'toggle_automation_status' by explicitly targeting media files.

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 a clear purpose but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites or exclusionary conditions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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