Tag a media asset

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that only the sidecar is updated (not asset bytes or version history) and that tags are de-duplicated. This is helpful given annotations provide no safety or idempotency hints.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details.

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 description covers the core behavior and return value, but lacks parameter detail (name, project, tag format) and does not specify any side effects beyond sidecar update. For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, it is minimally adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the 'name', 'project', 'add', and 'remove' parameters. Only 'add' and 'remove' are implied, but no details on types, constraints, or relationships are provided.

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 clearly states the tool's function: add/remove custom tags on a media asset. It specifies the scope ('sidecar only'), deduplication behavior, and return value, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'edit_media' or 'annotate_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 implies usage for tag modification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or context is given.

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