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

With annotations only giving destructiveHint/idempotentHint flags, the description carries the real behavioral detail: it changes job and credit records, a stale (>10 min) queued/running job can be marked failed with a one-time credit refund, and it never starts a generation. That is exactly the 'what gets destroyed / under what conditions' context an agent needs, and it actively resolves the misleading 'Show' framing.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, each adding distinct information (side effect, boundary, prerequisite) with no filler. Slightly dense, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the side-effect conditions and the prerequisite, leaving only minor gaps such as behavior when no stale job exists. Adequate for a single-parameter mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by specifying the provenance of project_id ('returned by prepare_song_project'), which tells the agent how to obtain a valid value. It does not add format or constraint details, but provenance is the salient semantic here.

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 and resource ('Show a saved Abracadabrax song project and its existing job') and explicitly draws a boundary against one sibling by saying it 'never starts a generation' (vs generate_song). It does not distinguish itself from get_song_job or update_song_project, so sibling differentiation is only partial. The verb 'Show' also undersells the mutation, but the purpose is still identifiable.

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 supplies the key prerequisite ('Requires a project_id returned by prepare_song_project') and one explicit exclusion ('it never starts a generation'), which routes the agent away from generate_song. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_song_job or update_song_project, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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