Fix Media References

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does say the tool scans and reports, which suggests a read-style operation, but it never confirms whether references are actually repaired (the name implies mutation), nor does it state permission needs, whether the operation is safe/idempotent, or what happens to broken references afterward.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence elaborates the scanning behavior, which is useful, though the description could spend its words more efficiently given the unresolved name mismatch.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single input parameter is fully covered by the schema. What is missing is the critical clarification of whether the tool merely reports or also fixes, which matters given the 'fix_' name and the absence of annotations.

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 a single parameter (content_type), so the schema already documents the argument fully. The description restates the concept as 'nodes of the given type' / 'content type' but adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete action and scope: scanning nodes of a content type and checking media relationships, then reporting unresolvable targets. However, the tool name promises 'fix_media_references' while the description only describes finding and reporting, leaving the agent unsure whether any repair occurs. It also does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like sync_media_files, media_derivative_generate, or bulk_update_nodes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as sync_media_files or clean_nodes_ai, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only context is the implicit 'given a content type' scoping, so usage must be inferred.

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