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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds real detail beyond them: unsupported changes are refused without rebuilding, retries must preserve operation_id, the call consumes the account's direct-edit allowance, and it is free-tier costless. What it does not state is whether removing music is reversible or what a refusal response looks like, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

The information is front-loaded — purpose first, then valid inputs, then constraints and prerequisites — and nearly every clause carries operational meaning. It is dense and long for a single description, with the track list consuming much of the length, which slightly hurts scanning but not correctness.

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?

For a nine-parameter destructive edit tool with an output schema, the description covers the decision-relevant surface: prerequisites, input provenance, constraint behavior, retry semantics, quota, and cost. Return-value explanation is correctly omitted because the output schema handles it.

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 only 44%, so the description carries much of the load, and it does: each track name is annotated with a mood, level_db is defined as relative to source audio, beat_sync is constrained to source-shot action montages, and music_staging_key is traced back to import_asset. Only 'enabled' and the staging-key format remain unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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 definition opens with a specific verb and resource pair, 'Enable or remove added music while preserving source speech,' which tells an agent exactly what changes and what is left alone. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutation tools such as set_scene_sounds and set_video_sound_effects, which act on different audio layers.

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 gives explicit prerequisites ('Read get_project_context first and pass its base_version and selected output_id'), names the source of an alternative input ('a music_staging_key from import_asset'), and routes file delivery to a different tool ('request a file separately with check_video with_download'). Those are when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else statements, not inferences.

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