strapi_update_media_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'Update' but does not explain whether the operation is a partial merge or a full replacement of metadata, whether it affects the binary file, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation safety hints.

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?

The description is a single, clearly worded sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and a clear purpose, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it omits behavioral details such as partial update semantics and return value, which would be helpful in the absence of an output schema and annotations. The description is acceptable but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with examples, and the description reinforces that fields like name, alternativeText, and caption are metadata fields. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond providing relatable examples, meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('Strapi Media Library file metadata'), and gives concrete examples ('name, alternativeText, or caption'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like strapi_update_entry, which updates content entries, and strapi_delete_media, which removes media.

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 usage context is implied by the phrase 'Media Library file metadata' and the examples, which suggests it is for metadata updates rather than content entry updates or file uploads. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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