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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds substantial value beyond that by stating the return value (an Asset ID), the placement follow-up (patch_film), looping behavior, a warning against inventing ids, and that credits are not consumed.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, then parameter coupling, then return and placement, then behavioral notes. Every sentence contributes practical 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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the returned Asset ID and how to use it. Combined with complete parameter descriptions and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does restate that gifId, query, kind, and offset must match the prior search_gifs call, but this mostly duplicates what each schema parameter description already says.

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 (import), resource (one GIF or sticker), source (search_gifs), and destination (open project as an animated image asset). It cleanly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_gifs, import_stock, and import_asset_url.

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 specifies the required upstream context: pass the gifId and the same query, kind, and offset as the preceding search_gifs call. It also directs the agent to place the resulting asset with patch_film. However, it does not explicitly name when to choose this over alternatives such as import_stock or add_from_library.

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