Update Media Metadata

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on what gets destroyed (e.g., fields not provided are replaced) or any side effects. No mention of permissions, rate limits, or reversibility. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It contains no extraneous words and efficiently summarizes the tool's function.

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 8 parameters, a required mediaId and name, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks cues on input constraints, ordering of fields, or any post-conditions. The output schema likely compensates for return value details, but the description could be more helpful.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each of the 8 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond listing a subset of fields. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 updates metadata fields for an existing media file, listing several fields. It distinguishes from siblings that update other entities. However, the list of fields in the description is not exhaustive (missing 'remark', 'folderId', 'manageBy'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context implies it is the tool for updating media metadata, but alternatives (e.g., bulk updates or other update tools) are not mentioned. Usage is implied by the tool's name and context.

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