Bulk Tag Media

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

Goes beyond the annotations (which already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing that processing is asynchronous and returns a background_job_status object rather than a Media object, that tags are ADDED not replaced, and that a permissioned token plus confirm=true is required. This is meaningful behavioral context the structured fields do not carry.

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 most important details (async behavior, return type, additive semantics) are front-loaded in the first two short paragraphs. The permissions section is somewhat boilerplate-heavy but still earns its place by stating required scope and the confirm requirement.

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 an async mutation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return object type, additive tag behavior, and authorization/confirm needs. It could go further by pointing to get_job_status for polling, but the essential information to call it correctly is present.

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 documents each parameter, setting the baseline at 3. The description does not help disambiguate the competing input shapes (top-level tag_names/hashed_ids vs. payload vs. payload_file), which is a real source of confusion the text leaves unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'accepts a list of medias to tag', making the bulk nature explicit. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name an alternative sibling (e.g., create_tags) to distinguish the tagging path from other tag operations.

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 implied by 'list of medias' and the confirm requirement, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to siblings like create_tags or update_media. The agent must infer that this is the batch path for applying tags.

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