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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: it returns immediately (async), provides timing estimates, explains the 'pages-partial' state, the skip behavior, and the safe re-run property. This aligns with annotations (idempotentHint, non-destructive) and adds critical operational context the annotations don't convey.

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 slightly verbose but every sentence carries useful information (cost, core action, timing, partial handling, re-run guidance, next step). It is front-loaded with 'Free' and the primary purpose, and maintains a logical flow.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is thorough: it covers what happens (state changes), when to use (after drawing, before export), performance expectations, edge cases (undrawn panels), and re-run safety. No missing information that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 50% (only allowPartial has a description). The description explains the behavior influenced by allowPartial (default refusal vs. allowing partial assembly) but does not explicitly name the parameter. projectId is self-evident and needs no extra explanation, so the description adds moderate value over the schema.

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 clearly states the specific action: laying out pages from drawn panels, lettering balloons/captions, and marking the book complete. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aetherwave_comic_draw (drawing) and aetherwave_comic_export (exporting) by naming the next step and emphasizing the assembly state change.

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 explicitly states when to re-run (after redrawing a panel) and points to the next step (export). The default behavior with undrawn panels and the allowPartial override are explained, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools as 'instead of X' – but the sibling context makes this clear enough. Slight gap: it doesn't say when not to use it beyond the partial-page refusal.

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