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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety needs no restating; the description instead adds the meaningful behavioral facts: two output granularities (compact inventory vs per-kind detail) and that returned templates and ids are stable and reusable in edit_session. It does not discuss result size or shape, which matters given 120+ enum values, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and capabilities before the parameter behavior and the downstream usage tip. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return content, and it does list the salient parts (types, inputs, numeric controls, graph sources, full default templates) plus the compact-vs-detail distinction. It stops short of describing the per-kind detail structure an agent would use to build edit_session changes, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the semantics: it declares the parameter optional and explains the behavioral difference between supplying and omitting it. It does not explain that the enum values correspond to node kind identifiers or what a given kind's detail payload contains, leaving the enum to self-document.

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 opens with a specific verb ("Discover") and a concrete resource (Hyperwave node types, inputs, numeric controls, graph sources, default node templates), which is clearly distinct from the other describe_* sibling (describe_wav_encoding) and from session/render tools. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 spells out both invocation modes explicitly ("Pass a kind to retrieve details; omit it for the compact inventory") and directs the agent to the downstream consumer ("Use these templates and stable ids in edit_session changes"). No exclusion against an alternative tool is stated, but no competing tool exists for this lookup, so context is clear.

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