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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds useful behavior beyond them: empty labels revert to 'Speaker X', segment speaker ids are unchanged, and only completed jobs in the caller's org can be renamed. This scope/permission context is valuable, though it doesn't describe the return or error behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the mechanics. Every sentence carries a distinct fact (ids source, empty-label behavior, segment id stability, access scope) with no waste.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, scope, and prerequisites adequately. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state the return value or failure modes, but annotations and the full schema coverage carry the rest.

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 the schema already documents jobId, id, and label fully. The description restates the id source (get_job, e.g. "A", "B") and the empty-label behavior, which largely duplicates the schema descriptions rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (rename) and resource (speakers on a completed speaker-separation job), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_job or speaker_separation. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Provides clear context: it applies only to a completed speaker-separation job in the caller's organization, and the speaker ids should come from get_job. It does not name a competing alternative tool explicitly, but the constraints make when-to-use clear.

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