refresh_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say what state is replaced (in-memory media/trims), whether the operation fails if the file is missing, or whether it is destructive to existing references—all critical for a mutation tool with zero 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. However, the extreme brevity leaves no room for the contextual detail a mutation tool with no annotations would benefit from.

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?

Low complexity (one param, no output schema), but with no annotations and no return/error behavior described, the definition is thin for an operation that mutates media state. The agent knows the what but not the consequences or failure modes.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including its source (get_project_items / find_project_items). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Reload a project item's media from disk' tells the agent it re-reads media for an existing project item, not a new import. It does not distinguish itself from semantically adjacent siblings such as relink_media or attach_proxy, so the agent must infer the difference.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus relink_media, create_proxy, or import_media, and no preconditions (e.g., media offline, file moved). The agent is left to guess the triggering scenario entirely.

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