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

The description adds waiting behavior and credit consumption beyond annotations. However, it omits details like timeout behavior, error handling, and whether the tool modifies state (destructive). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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 extremely brief—two short sentences—with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is highly concise and front-loads the core action.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the return value (output), how to handle the wait, or typical use cases. The tool is complex but the description is too sparse.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-level information, falling short of compensating for any gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a voiceover and waits, which is specific and aligns with the name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling creation tools like 'wubble_create_song_and_wait' or 'wubble_text_to_speech', which also produce audio.

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 credit consumption but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like text-to-speech or other create-and-wait tools. No scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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