Media Derivative Generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether generating a derivative writes a file (mutation), whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the derivative already exists, or what permissions are required.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; there is no front-loaded scope, constraint, or outcome information to anchor the call.

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 described, but for a mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks enough information to call it confidently without inspecting external docs.

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% and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. 'media_id' is fairly self-evident, but 'derivative_id' is ambiguous — it could be an existing derivative definition ID or a derivative type name — and neither is clarified in the description or schema.

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 verb (Generate) and resource (a specific derivative for media), which is more than a tautology, but 'derivative' is never defined — an agent cannot tell whether this produces a thumbnail, crop, transcode, or cached asset. No sibling tool covers derivative generation, so differentiation is less critical, but the core action remains vague.

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 call this tool, what prerequisites exist (does the media item already need to be uploaded?), or what alternatives apply (e.g. sync_media_files, media_create_from_url). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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