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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by explaining the reconciliation semantics of identical operationId/input retries and confirming there is no model call or credit charge. It stops short of saying what state is lost when a layer is switched off.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then the key parameters and the retry rule, then the cost note. No filler and every sentence 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 not be described. The description covers scope, concurrency token, idempotency and cost, which is sufficient for a mutation tool; only the effect of toggling a layer off is left implicit.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description reinforces the two subtle parameters: operationId as a stable retry key and expectedRevision as the current saved plan revision used for concurrency control. This adds concurrency/idempotency meaning the schema descriptions only partially convey.

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 names a specific verb (toggle) and resource (one Film music, background or effects layer), enumerating the exact scope of the operation. It is clearly distinguishable from adjacent siblings such as studio_film_toggle_camera, which toggles a different layer domain.

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 states the calling preconditions (expectedRevision = current saved Film plan revision, stable operationId) and the safe-retry rule, which is real usage context. However it never states when to prefer this over an alternative or any exclusion, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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