Save media asset

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

Discloses creation of a sidecar .meta.json file and persistence of bytes, which adds value beyond annotations that only mark it as not read-only. However, does not address overwrite behavior, permission requirements, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent (though annotations indicate it is not).

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 sentences plus a note, front-loaded with core action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficiently conveys purpose, supported types, and a critical constraint (filename format).

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?

Covers main aspects (what is saved, sidecar file, name and encoding requirements) despite 10 parameters and no output schema. Missing return value description, but tool behavior is straightforward. The 'group' parameter is explained only in schema, but sufficiently.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: explains name format ('plain filename with extension'), clarifies role of content and encoding (UTF-8 vs base64), and describes metadata sidecar that ties title, prompt, tags, ticket together. With 70% schema coverage, the description compensates well.

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?

Clearly states verb 'save', resource 'media asset into project's media/ folder', and specifies supported asset types (HTML/SVG text, base64 image). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'edit_media', 'revert_media', and 'list_media' by emphasizing creation and persistence of new assets.

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?

Implies use after generating content ('You generate the content; this persists...') but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like 'edit_media' or 'revert_media'. No direct guidance on conditions to avoid use.

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