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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the seeding behavior, that a workspace link is returned, and repeat-call idempotency at the semantic level ('returns the same workspace and never creates a second one'). It does not explain the destructive aspect flagged by destructiveHint=true — nothing in the description tells the agent what could be overwritten or what permissions/account state are required.

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?

Three tight sentences: trigger first, mechanics and return value second, exclusions last. No filler, and every clause (seeding, idempotency, save behavior) carries distinct information.

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 one-parameter mutating action with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers trigger, source of the ID, side effects, return value, and repeat-call behavior. The remaining gap is the destructiveHint=true aspect, which is never addressed in prose.

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 the single parameter is fully described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance the schema lacks by tying the opportunity_id to list_video_opportunities, telling the agent where the value must come from.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('opens the idea's video workspace ... seeded with the idea's own pitch') and states exactly what input it consumes and what it produces. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_video_opportunities and rate_video_opportunity, which are named.

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 states the triggering condition ('when the user decides to make one of their Tukey video ideas'), names the alternative for the adjacent case ('do not use it merely to save an idea (use rate_video_opportunity with keep)'), and excludes unchosen ideas. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit.

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