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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses all relevant behavior: it requires an active plan, returns a stored URL with an expiry, enforces a 25MB limit and specific formats, and details all possible error codes (validation_error reasons, file_not_readable, local_files_disabled). It also explains that file_path only works when the server enables it, providing complete transparency about environmental constraints.

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?

Although the description is long, it is meticulously structured with the core purpose stated first, followed by parameter details, return values, and error handling. Every sentence adds unique value—format limits, error codes, and integration guidance are all essential. There is no redundancy or fluff; the density is justified given the complexity of the tool.

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 complexity (error handling, multiple input modes, external integration), the description is complete. It covers inputs, outputs (music_id, url, label, expires_at), error handling, prerequisites (active plan), and downstream usage. It also accounts for the readOnlyHint=false annotation by explicitly labeling the action as an upload. Nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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 schema provides only property names and types with zero descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully: it explains audio_base64 accepts both raw base64 and data:audio/mpeg;base64 URLs, details the file_path limitation to the server's filesystem, and specifies label is truncated to 120 characters. This added semantics is critical for correct usage and is perfectly delivered.

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 precise purpose: upload one music track and return a URL for reuse in tegas_edit_video's music.url. It names the verb (upload), the resource (music track), and the output (url), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It also implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing solely on music upload while other tools handle videos or scenarios.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it explains the two input methods (audio_base64 and file_path), when each is appropriate (remote vs local/self-hosted), and what to do if the server disables local files (fallback to audio_base64). It also clarifies format and size limits, and instructs the agent on how to use the returned URL in tegas_edit_video, including setting music.enabled. This is comprehensive and leaves no decision to inference.

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