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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: the asset must be pre-existing and authorized, and speaker alignment is deferred to finalization rather than happening at attach time. It doesn't clarify what happens on re-attach of the same role, but that is largely covered by idempotentHint.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the deferred-alignment note follows as supporting context. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for an 8-required-parameter mutation with zero schema descriptions the definition leaves too much unspecified: the purpose of recordingSetId, the role of idempotencyKey, and the semantics of participant_label vs participant_name and is_primary.

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 0% with 8 required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only sheds light on role ('camera or screen'), asset_id ('existing authorized video asset'), and loosely participant_name ('main speaker'). workspaceId, idempotencyKey, recordingSetId, participant_label, and is_primary are entirely unexplained, including the ambiguous label-vs-name distinction and the meaning of is_primary.

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 (attach), a specific resource (one existing authorized video asset), and the role slot it fills (camera or screen track). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like recording_sets_clips_create or timeline_media_add without opening a 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?

The phrase 'existing authorized' implies a precondition (the asset must already exist and be authorized) and 'alignment happens during finalization' hints at when in the workflow this is used. But no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many recording_sets_* and editor_* siblings is given.

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