neurover_add_media_to_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description corroborates with 'Меняет полотно', so the mutation semantics are consistent and reinforced. It adds a safety-style usage constraint beyond annotations, but says nothing about duplicate-placement behavior, positioning defaults, or what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action before the restriction and the alternative. Nothing could be removed without losing a decision-relevant fact.

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?

Purpose, mutation warning and the alternative tool are covered, which is the critical part for a write tool with no output schema. However, with 0% schema coverage and a nested position object, an agent still cannot tell what 'position' means or what 'account' selects, leaving a real gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 0% across four parameters including a nested position object, so the description must carry the load. It only implies mediaAssetId ('существующим файлом медиатеки') and workflowId ('полотно'); the optional 'account' and the nested 'position' x/y coordinates get no meaning at all.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Поставить на полотно плитку с уже существующим файлом медиатеки') and immediately distinguishes it from the generation path by naming prepare_generation. An agent can tell this is a canvas-mutation action adding an existing media asset, not a new generation.

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?

Explicit gating condition: 'вызывать только по прямой просьбе пользователя о плитках или полотне', plus the alternative route for normal generation ('Для обычной генерации — prepare_generation (через чат полотна)'). Both when-to-use and when-not, with the sibling named.

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