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

Annotations already indicate writability and destructiveness. The description adds that it consumes Wubble requests or credits, which is useful. However, it does not clarify what is destroyed (e.g., original song? credits?) or other behavioral traits like rate limits.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and side effect with no wasted words. Ideal conciseness.

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 an output schema, the description omits essential context like prerequisites (completed song), failure modes (insufficient credits), and what the extension result looks like. For a 6-parameter tool, this is inadequate.

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 description adds little beyond it. The description does not elaborate on any parameters beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 the action 'Extend Wubble song' and adds a side effect (consumes requests/credits). It distinguishes from siblings like wubble_remix_song and wubble_generate_song. However, it could be more precise about what 'extend' means (e.g., adding a new section).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wubble_remix_song or wubble_generate_song. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., need a completed song) or scenarios where extending is preferred.

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