insert_curated_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the insertion action. It does not disclose whether an existing fill is replaced or layered, what node types accept the fill, or whether media is fetched from a remote source. These are material side effects for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentence that wastes no words, front-loads the main action and object, and packs useful semantic detail into a compact structure. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter tool, the schema plus description is mostly sufficient for a straightforward call. However, the lack of output schema and annotations leaves gaps around the return value, target node constraints, and the effect on existing fills. These are notable but not critical for using the 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds natural-language meaning for some enum values ('portraits/avatars, landscape, tech mockups') and clarifies that targetNodeId receives the fill. However, it omits the 'architecture' and 'abstract-dark' enum values and does not fully explain the semantic differences between them, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Inserts'), a concrete resource ('curated stock imagery' or 'procedural mesh gradients'), and the effect ('directly as fills'). The media categories distinguish it from the sibling insert_icon, which focuses on icons, so an agent can differentiate them without opening the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as insert_icon, apply_node_patch, or get_fill_image. It neither states ideal scenarios nor excludes sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb alone.

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