refresh_media

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that media is reloaded from disk, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as whether in-app edits or metadata are preserved, what happens if the file is missing or offline, or whether the operation is destructive.

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 12-word sentence with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Refreshes the media for a project item') and the clarifying detail ('reloading it from disk') follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the basic operation adequately. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, it leaves notable gaps around side effects, failure behavior, and when to prefer this over sibling tools like relink_media or check_offline_media.

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 single parameter projectItemId is already documented in the schema as 'The ID of the project item to refresh'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which fits the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Refreshes the media for a project item') plus the key action detail ('reloading it from disk'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like replace_clip_media (which substitutes different media) and relink_media (which re-points to new paths), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to call this tool versus its close siblings such as check_offline_media, relink_media, or replace_clip_media. The phrase 'reloading it from disk' implies the use case of picking up external file changes, but the agent is left to infer this without explicit context or exclusions.

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