reconnect_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation; the description usefully adds that the relink source is a folder path. It does not disclose what happens on an invalid path, whether existing links are overwritten, or whether any partial reconnect can occur.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope alternatives are packed into one clause. It is efficient, though so terse that some of the missing detail could have been added without bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 4-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the project parameter and the clip-vs-sequence selection rule undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does map three of four params meaningfully: path is the folder source, clip is a single target, sequence targets every clip in it. However, the 'project' parameter is never mentioned and the precedence when both clip and sequence are supplied is left ambiguous.

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 (reconnect) plus the resource (offline media) and the two scopes it supports (a single clip, or every clip in a sequence) from a folder. An agent can distinguish this from import_media or get_clip. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is not a 5.

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 word 'offline' implies the trigger condition (media that has gone missing from its original location), but the description never says when to prefer reconnect_media over import_media, nor explains how clip and sequence interact as targets. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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