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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new context: the operation requires explicit user confirmation and only toggles one clip while preserving other clips and private project data. That narrowing of blast radius is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot 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?

Two tightly written sentences with the action front-loaded and the safety/preservation constraint immediately trailing. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described. For a destructive, open-world mutation the description supplies the key facts: confirmation requirement and preservation of other content. Only the three opaque identifiers (workspaceId, assetId, idempotencyKey) are left unaddressed.

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 only 17%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does not. It implies clipId and visibility (show/hide) and covers confirmPublicSharing via the confirmation sentence, but workspaceId, assetId, and idempotencyKey get no explanation at all.

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 pair and resource: 'Show or hide one identified clip on an existing public review page.' The scope (one clip, existing public review page) is precise enough to distinguish it from a general publish/unpublish, though the sibling tools clip_share_publish and clip_share_unpublish are not named.

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 one real precondition — 'after explicit user confirmation' — which is actionable. However, it never says when to use this tool versus clip_share_publish, clip_share_unpublish, or clip_share_get, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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