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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the cost model (free, no credits, but counts against storage), a size ceiling (95 MB), the environment caveat for filePath, and supported formats. These are operational facts an agent cannot derive from the schema or the safety hints alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return value, then constraints. The trailing format list (png/jpg/.../mov) is dense but earns its place since the schema does not enumerate accepted types; still, it reads as a compressed checklist.

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?

Covers the essentials for a 6-param write tool with no output schema: it states the return value (permanent URL), the size limit, the source exclusivity rule, cost, and environment caveats. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the mutual-exclusivity rule ('give exactly one source') and the environment restriction on filePath. It omits guidance on tags/title/description defaults, which the schema already covers.

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 (saves/upload a user-provided file into the AetherWave gallery) and its output (permanent URL). Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling generators like generate_image/generate_video by emphasizing files the user *already has*, and enumerates downstream consumers (edit, animate, master, merch).

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?

Gives concrete conditions: exactly one source, which sources are valid, that filePath only works on the npx server, and that >95 MB must go through the website uploader. It routes to an alternative for oversized files, but doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over a sibling generation tool beyond the implied 'existing file' case.

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