Request specific domains for a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful conceptual context — this is a request forwarded to Growwer rather than direct media creation — but does not disclose the consequences of the destructive write, any quota/cost, or what happens after submission.

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 front-loaded sentence opening with 'Use this when…' that earns its place with no filler. Phrasing is slightly awkward ('medias'), but structurally efficient.

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 3-param write tool with no output schema, the description conveys intent adequately, but leaves open what the request produces, whether it is immediate or async, and the implications of the destructive hint — gaps an agent might need filled.

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%, with id, domains (1–200), and requestId all documented including idempotency semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — requesting medias on particular domains that the catalogue does not offer for a project — and clarifies the mechanism ('asks Growwer to find them'). This distinguishes it from catalogue/search tools, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use this when the user wants medias on particular domains the catalogue does not offer' gives an explicit when-to-use condition and an implicit exclusion (catalogue-offered domains go elsewhere). It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g. search_project_medias / get_catalogue_media) so the agent must infer routing.

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