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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by explaining that matching happens by name, only exercises without videos are targeted, and the result reports both linked and unmatched items. It does not conflict with the annotations and usefully clarifies the mutation's scope, though it does not discuss authorization needs or 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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core action and result. The first sentence is slightly dense, but no sentence is 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains the matching behavior, the condition that exercises lack videos, and the shape of the result as linked versus unmatched. It could do a bit more to clarify edge cases, but the essential information is present.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single exercise_ids parameter, including its source from get_workout or get_program and the 500-item limit. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: matching exercises without videos to library videos by name so students see them. It clearly explains the outcome, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby tools such as list_my_exercise_videos or list_library_exercises.

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 implies usage by saying it targets exercises in the trainer's workouts or programs that have no video. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, nor does it say when not to call it.

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