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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the composite side effects (media kit is created, external social-data collection is started) and scopes the idempotency claim to existing normalized social accounts. It stops short of describing auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when a creator already exists.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary create/link action followed by the secondary effects and the idempotency caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the missing side-effect context. The remaining gap is behavioral on duplicates of the creator itself (only socials are stated as idempotent) and any permission requirements.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema; this sets the baseline at 3. The description only echoes the socials parameter ("supplied public social handles") and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ("Create or link one creator") and then enumerates the composite side effects that define this tool: agency media-kit creation and starting external social-data collection. That composite behavior clearly separates it from siblings like media_kit_create or roster_commit_import, which do only one of those things.

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?

Usage is implied by the described side effects (use this when onboarding a single creator with public social handles), but the description never states when to prefer it over roster_commit_import for bulk adds or social_add for attaching socials to an existing creator. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving routing to inference.

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