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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint, non-read-only, non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: identical retries return the same project, fictional characters bypass photo/likeness consent while real persons retain the app consent flow, and no generation or charge is incurred. Auth/permission requirements are still not spelled out.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact clauses covering artist handling, per-kind requirements, retry semantics, return value and cost. No sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 still orients the agent on what the identifiers are for. Seven parameters at full schema coverage, plus consent, idempotency and no-charge disclosure, leaves nothing critical unstated for a creation tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter conditional rules that are easy to miss: songTitle is required for music and forbidden-as-song for film, and title is the film fallback. It also clarifies that artistName may be an existing name or a new fictional one, tying it to createArtist.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a Music or Film project in the customer's catalogue.' The closing 'No generation or charge' separates it from the many generation/quote siblings (studio_generation_*, studio_motion_create), and 'start' vs 'generate' is made unambiguous.

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 branching conditions for each kind ('Music requires songTitle; Film requires title or songTitle and no song') and the two artist paths (existing name vs. createArtist:true). It also implies the next step ('Returns project identifiers for song upload or Film script import'). What's missing is any explicit exclusion or named alternative tool to use instead.

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