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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: free/no credits, pending state, human moderation with no automatic approval, and a hard rate limit of 5 submissions per day. The annotations only flag readOnly=false and non-idempotent, so this lifecycle and quota detail is genuinely additive.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the cost ('Free.') and then the action, moderation outcome, rate limit, and status-check route. No filler.

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 non-idempotent write with openWorldHint, the description covers cost, moderation, quota, and result verification, which is what an agent most needs before calling. The remaining gap is the undocumented submission fields (id, tags, previewText).

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?

Five parameters with only 20% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about id, tags, description, or previewText limits. Only 'author' is documented, and that is in the schema, not the description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (propose/submit) plus the exact resource (one of your custom presets) and destination (public AwesomeVideo community gallery). The name and title could be confused with save_custom_preset or update_custom_preset, but the description makes the distinct publish-to-community action unmistakable.

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 clear context: the submission goes to a human moderator and only shows in list_presets after approval, with a pointer to get_custom_preset (community.status) for follow-up. It never explicitly says to create the preset first with save_custom_preset, so the precondition is only implied.

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