relink_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('relinks') but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites such as whether the new path must already exist, permissions required, or what happens if the relink fails.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence. It immediately states the action and condition with no filler or redundant information.

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?

The definition is minimally viable for a simple 2-parameter tool with fully documented parameters. However, it lacks guidance on alternatives, behavioral side effects, and any error or return behavior, which is more significant given the absence of annotations and an output schema.

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 input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema; it only contextualizes the newFilePath as the target for offline/moved media.

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 action ('Relinks'), the resource ('offline or moved media file'), and the target ('new file path'). It clearly conveys what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like replace_clip_media or refresh_media.

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 description provides clear usage context: it is for offline or moved media files that need a new path. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition is specific enough for an agent to determine when this tool applies.

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