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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that a browser security gesture requires a human, that a dialog opens with the 'reason' shown word for word, that the call returns an actionId which must be handed to await_user_action, and that 'granted' is what makes get_media list the files. That is the full interaction contract for a non-idempotent, non-destructive side-effecting tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its human-only constraint, then the follow-up call, the trigger condition, the exclusion, and the no-dialog alternative — each sentence adds a distinct operational fact with no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the return path (actionId → await_user_action → 'granted' → get_media) and the timing of the auto-scan fallback, so an agent knows exactly what to do after calling.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds real meaning by stressing that reason is displayed verbatim to the user and should name both the footage and the intended use, and by tying token to the browser-driving session. It stops short of explaining projectId beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Asks the user to attach a folder of THEIR OWN source footage') and immediately distinguishes it from siblings by scoping it to human-only, own-footage cases versus add_clips/download_stock_media/get_media. An agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when get_media comes back empty and the user has footage somewhere on their disk'), an explicit exclusion ('NEVER call it for files YOU made or fetched'), and names the alternative mechanism (drop files into the project's media/ folder and they join the pool automatically).

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