neurover_ensure_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. Beyond that, the description adds real behavior: the operation is content-deduplicating (find by content before uploading) and it writes only to the media library, never the canvas. It stops short of covering failure modes, whether a new asset is created on every upload, or any auth/quota constraints.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the outcome, then the mechanism, then the usage caveat. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 return value (mediaAssetId) is explained in lieu of an output schema and the when-not-to-use case is fully covered, so the agent knows whether to call it. However, for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the unexplained workflowId and model/account fields leave the invocation underspecified.

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 7 parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It only implicitly identifies filePath as the local file and says nothing about the other required parameter (workflowId) or about model, account, modelId, mimeType and referenceField, leaving most of the schema opaque.

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 specific verb and outcome: resolve a local file to a mediaAssetId, either by content-matching in the media library or by uploading. It also scopes the write precisely ('ТОЛЬКО в медиатеку, на полотне ничего не появляется'), which separates it from media-on-canvas siblings like neurover_add_media_to_workflow.

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 explicitly discourages use ('Обычно не нужен') and names the alternative that makes it unnecessary — prepare_generation accepts filePath directly. That is a when-not-to-use rule plus the replacement tool in one clause, which is exactly what usage guidance should do.

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