Tag a media asset

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false). Description adds useful context: updates only sidecar, tags deduplicated, returns new tag list. This compensates for annotation silence.

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, front-loaded with action and key behavioral detail (sidecar-only update), no redundant words. Every clause adds value.

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?

Tool has 4 params, no output schema, no param descriptions. Description covers core behavior but lacks parameter specifics and examples. Adequate for a simple tagging tool but could be more complete given low schema coverage.

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 coverage is 0% with no property descriptions. The description mentions 'add and/or remove tags' which aligns with 'add' and 'remove' parameters, but does not explain 'name' or 'project' (both required). No format or constraints for tag strings are given.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Add and/or remove' and specific resource 'custom tags on a media asset'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it only updates the sidecar, not bytes or version history, which is unique among media tools.

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?

Description implies use for adding/removing tags but does not explicitly guide when to use vs. alternatives like annotate_media (structured annotations) or edit_media. No 'when not to use' or alternative tool names are given.

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