relink_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, yet it says nothing about preconditions (must the item currently be offline?), path validation, or whether the operation can fail or be undone. For a state-mutating project operation this is a substantial gap.

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 with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though its brevity contributes to the missing context elsewhere rather than being a virtue in itself.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least indicate success/failure behavior or that the target item must be resolved first. The schema covers the inputs, but the agent is left without any operational context.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the hint that nodeId comes from get_project_items / find_project_items. The description adds nothing beyond mirroring newPath as 'a different media file', 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?

The description states a specific verb (relink/point at) and resource (project item's media file), which separates it from generic import tools. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely related siblings refresh_media and attach_proxy, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer from the verb alone that this is for relinking offline/moved media rather than refreshing media at its existing path or attaching a proxy.

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