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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by noting credit consumption. It doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like what gets destroyed or failure behavior, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Two succinct sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by cost implication. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values. However, it lacks context about wait behavior (timeout, polling) beyond what's in parameter descriptions. For a creation tool, more behavioral context would help, but it's minimally adequate.

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 description adds no parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters.

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 it creates an instrumental and waits for completion. It distinguishes from siblings like wubble_generate_instrumental (which may be async), but doesn't explicitly contrast, leaving some ambiguity.

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 mentions consumption of requests or credits, hinting at cost, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., async generation or other creation tools). No when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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