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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds the key consequence beyond that: any edits made to the current style are replaced. It does not cover permissions, recoverability, or the result, but the overwrite disclosure is the behavior an agent most needs.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed immediately by the destructive side effect. Nothing wasted.

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 and no annotation detail about effects, so the description could say more: what the video looks like afterward, whether the change is undoable, and what precondition produces the three proposals (a sibling tool). It is adequate but leaves real gaps for a mutating 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 coverage is 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, while option only has numeric bounds there. The description supplies the missing meaning by saying the values 1-3 correspond to the three proposed style options, but it doesn't say where those proposals come from or what happens with an out-of-range value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: applies one of three proposed style options to the lyric video. That is clearly distinct from siblings like export_video or edit_lyrics, though it does not name update_style explicitly to draw the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied (pick one of the three proposed options) and the replacement warning gives a reason to be careful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs update_style or when-not guidance.

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