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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: starting analysis consumes a response per Mind, requires Premium, and that selecting a different video doesn't alter results. It also explains GET vs start behavior and output keying, giving an agent a realistic expectation of side effects and outcomes.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then details usage, constraints, and side effects without redundancy. Every sentence contributes new information, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's dual actions, parameter nuances, and premium requirement, the description covers the essential calling context. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. The only notable omission is explicit guidance on where messageId/studyId come from, but that is likely inherited from the study 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains assetKey format (upload path or normalized URL) and the action enum's behavioral meaning. However, it leaves messageId (required), studyId, and studyName unexplained, which is a gap for a required parameter.

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 tool reads or starts a question asset heatmap, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions behavior parity with Minds UI and distinguishes itself from siblings like run_study_questions or export_heatmap by focusing on the asset heatmap aspect for a question.

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?

It provides concrete usage context: when to pass assetKey (saved path or URL), the difference between start with assetKey (reuse analysis) and without (rerun), and a prerequisite (Premium). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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