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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining the destructive scope (replaces that user's previous feedback only, not accepted clips or defaults) and a real prerequisite (the feedback storage migration must be installed). This is meaningful context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the mutation scope, then the prerequisite. No filler and 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 need no explanation, and the annotations plus description together cover safety, scope of mutation, and prerequisites. The gaps are the undocumented workspaceId/idempotencyKey parameters and the optional/required mismatch on category and comment.

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 weight. It adds the 1-5 rating range and the nature of category/comment, but says nothing about workspaceId or idempotencyKey, and it calls category/comment optional while the schema marks both as required (category nullable). Baseline 3 reflects partial compensation for a sparse 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?

States a specific verb (Save) and resource (the user's 1-5 rating and optional quality category/comment) scoped to one completed playable video export. This is unambiguous and no sibling tool covers feedback capture, so it is easily distinguished.

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 description establishes the precondition (one completed playable video export) and clarifies the effect (replaces that user's previous feedback, does not change accepted clips or defaults). It stops short of naming when a caller would prefer a different tool, but no obvious alternative exists in the sibling set.

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