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

Annotations declare non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: a draft is saved for review, discovered fields are NOT applied to existing videos, and account credits may be consumed. This clarifies the real cost and side-effect profile, though it leaves the idempotency mechanism (idempotencyKey) unaddressed.

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 short, front-loaded sentences — purpose first, then side effects, then cost — with no filler. It is efficient, though the side-effect and cost clauses could be slightly tightened.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description does cover purpose, side effects, and cost. But for a 4-required-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the omission of idempotency and workspace scoping leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only loosely gestures at websiteUrl ('the exact website the user supplied') and confirmAuthorizedToScan ('authorized to scan'). Neither idempotencyKey nor workspaceId is explained at all, leaving two of four required parameters opaque.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'extracting a brand profile from the exact website' — and its 'Start...' framing hints at the async companion workspace_brand_scan_get, though it never names that sibling. An agent can identify the operation clearly but must infer the get/start pairing from the sibling list.

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?

It conveys the precondition that the website must be 'supplied and authorized' by the user, which frames when the tool is appropriate. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to workspace_brand_scan_get for retrieving the resulting profile, so routing is only implied.

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