Change a media file's display title without changing its filename or public URL, so existing links continue to work.
Change a media file's display title in the media library. The filename and public URL stay the same, so existing links keep working.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| media_id | Yes | Media ID | |
| new_title | Yes | New media title |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare mutation, idempotency, and destructiveness, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value by stating that the filename and public URL are untouched and existing links keep working. It doesn't say that the previous title is overwritten or what permissions are required, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the consequence that matters. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.
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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying safety semantics, this is nearly complete: the effect and the non-effects (filename/URL preserved) are covered. The only real gap is the absence of information about overwriting the old title or auth requirements.
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 both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal semantic nuance by framing new_title as the display title rather than the filename.
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 states a specific verb ('Change') and a specific, narrow resource ('a media file's display title in the media library'), and goes on to delimit it from filename/URL changes. An agent can distinguish it cleanly from upload_media_file, delete_media_file, and get_media_list.
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?
Usage is only implied: the note that the filename and public URL stay the same hints at 'rename without breaking links' as the reason to prefer this over re-uploading, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.