Import Media Asset

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds clarity by specifying the action ('Import') and the return value ('Anki-ready field value'), which is not evident from annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting files or error behavior, which prevents a higher score.

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, front-loaded sentence provides all the essential information without wordiness. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers only the broad purpose and return type. It omits details like how mediaKind behaves when omitted, file size limits, or naming behavior, leaving room for agent confusion. This is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'audio or image file,' which hints at the mediaKind enum, but it does not explain localPath, profileId, or preferredFilename. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Import'), names the resource ('local audio or image file into Anki media'), and states the outcome ('return an Anki-ready field value'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools, none of which handle media import.

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 makes the tool's context clear: it is for importing media files into Anki for use in note fields. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but since no sibling tool performs media import, the usage context is unambiguous.

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