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

Annotations indicate idempotent and not destructive. The description adds that it merges a patch (partial update) and applies at next export, which provides behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Essential information is presented efficiently.

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?

No output schema, but description provides necessary context: how to use (read first), what it does (merge patch), and when it takes effect (next export). Missing error handling or return info, but adequate for a 2-parameter 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 coverage is 100%. The description mentions keys like 'enabled' and 'styling' as examples but does not fully specify all possible keys in caption_config. It adds some value over schema by stating 'partial caption config to merge', but not enough to raise above baseline 3.

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 explicitly states the tool merges a patch into the project's burned-in caption config, specifying the resource (project's caption config) and action (merge patch), and distinguishes it from other update tools by referencing get_project.

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 advises reading the current value from get_project before updating and clarifies that changes apply at next export with no rebuild needed, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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