Gumlet MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no mention of duplicate handling, position defaulting behavior, permission requirements, or whether the playlist must already exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient but perhaps overly terse given the tool's behavior is non-trivial.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a non-idempotent mutation that accepts bulk assets, the description omits ordering behavior, duplicate handling, and failure modes, leaving an agent with only a surface-level understanding.

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 50%, but the description's 'single asset or a list of assets' phrasing does explain why asset_list is an array, adding marginal value. It does not, however, clarify the position semantics or the ordering implications of adding multiple assets at once, which the schema leaves partly to the nested position description.

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 specific verb (adds) and resource (asset/playlist), and clarifies it accepts either a single asset or a list. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like remove_asset_playlist or reorder_asset_playlist, so an agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the closely related siblings (remove_asset_playlist, reorder_asset_playlist, get_playlist_assets) that an agent would need to choose among.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention the 60-day timeframe cap, whether an empty filter set returns global data, or any response/pagination behavior.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no bloat. But it is so thin that it barely earns its place, verging on a restatement of the tool name rather than providing distinct value.

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 tool with four nested parameters, an aggregate/filter structure, enum-heavy field lists, and a 60-day constraint, the description is far too sparse. Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description omits scoping behavior (e.g. what happens with no filters) and any routing guidance versus the breakdown/chart siblings.

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 the schema already documents filters, aggregate, timeframe, and workspace_id in detail (including the 60-day limit and exact-match semantics). The description only vaguely references 'the given metrics' and adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('aggregated data of the given metrics'), and the word 'aggregated' loosely separates it from analytics_breakdown_data and analytics_chart_data. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from those close siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (analytics_breakdown_data, analytics_chart_data, analytics_aggregated_data) that an agent would need to choose among. It simply restates the endpoint's function.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare purpose and does not contradict the annotations, making 3 the appropriate ceiling.

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?

A single tight sentence with no padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Its problem is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the rich schema carries the constraints (60-day range, 1-3 breakdowns, pagination). However, for a tool this complex with a confusingly similar sibling, the description leaves the agent without enough to choose or scope it correctly.

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 the schema already documents filters, breakdowns, date_range, and workspace_id. The description only gestures at 'metrics' and 'breakdown field', adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the structured fields, which lands at the 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 names a specific verb and resource: it retrieves breakdown data of given metrics by a given breakdown field. An agent can understand the operation, but it never differentiates itself from near-identical siblings like analytics_aggregated_data, analytics_chart_data, or especially insights_breakdown_data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling set contains both analytics_breakdown_data and insights_breakdown_data plus aggregated/chart variants, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note on the 60-day window, result shape, or how the chart output behaves - so it does no behavioral work of its own.

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?

It is short and front-loads the retrieval purpose, but the second sentence is filler with a grammatical error and conveys no information. Roughly half the description does not earn its place.

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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters, nested objects, and multiple near-identical analytics siblings, yet the description provides no differentiation or usage context. Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, but the selection-critical context is missing.

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 filters, metrics, group_by, date_range, workspace_id, and chart_dimension are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

It names a verb and a resource ('retrieves viewer analytics data'), but the resource is generic and does not distinguish this tool from the many analytics siblings (analytics_aggregated_data, analytics_breakdown_data, insights_chart_data, retrieve_analytics). Nothing signals the chart/time-series nature implied by the name, so an agent cannot tell them apart 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. 'This endpoint is use for deep insights on the analytics data' is a vague marketing phrase, not a condition that would help an agent choose this tool over analytics_aggregated_data or analytics_breakdown_data.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination behavior, metric-selection semantics, or date-range defaults, which would be the value-add here.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but for a six-parameter analytics tool with grouping and pagination it is terse to the point of being under-specified rather than truly concise.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but a tool offering ten selectable metrics, period grouping, date-range filtering and pagination gets no coverage of any of these in the description. Against that complexity the definition is incomplete.

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 83%, so the schema already documents asset_id, group_by, date_range, page_size and the metric enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('video analytics') and constrains scope to 'a single asset', which separates it from aggregate siblings like analytics_aggregated_data and top_assets. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the several analytics siblings (analytics_aggregated_data, analytics_breakdown_data, analytics_chart_data, retrieve_analytics). An agent is left to infer selection purely from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds real value beyond that: it reveals the two-phase async behavior (response yields upload_url, a PUT is required, and audio is only attached after calling the complete API). It omits auth requirements and failure/retry behavior.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the procedural steps. Every sentence is relevant to correct invocation, though the workflow sentences could be tightened.

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 explained, and the description covers the purpose, the multi-step workflow, and the required follow-up call. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only edge-case handling.

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 the schema already documents asset_ID and language_codes (including the ISO 639-1 reference). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Add any audio file to the video asset.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling complete_audio_upload by explicitly naming the 'audio upload complete API' as the required next step, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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?

The description gives a clear sequencing context: call this, PUT files to the returned URLs, then call the audio upload complete API. This routes the agent correctly through the workflow, though it never states when this tool should NOT be used or what happens if the workflow is abandoned.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the assets are VOD and that deletion is batched, without disclosing permission requirements, recoverability, or side effects on related resources.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and batch scope appear immediately, so every word earns its place.

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 batch destructive operation, annotations already communicate the key safety profile, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The description is sufficient for basic invocation, though it omits any handling guidance for partial failures or authorization 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 both parameters (source_id and asset_list) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('VOD assets'), and batch scope ('multiple ... at once'). This clearly distinguishes it from singular delete operations like delete_asset or delete_source, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It implies bulk deletion but never states when to prefer this tool over delete_asset or how to handle edge cases such as partial failures.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations: no partial-failure behavior for a bulk mutation, no note on whether adding an existing tag is a no-op, and no mention that the operation is not idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though it is arguably too terse to carry the guidance the tool needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema documents all four parameters. However, with zero required parameters the description leaves the valid call shape ambiguous (which arrays must be non-empty), which is a meaningful gap for a bulk mutation 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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the bulk framing ('multiple assets at once') and no syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g. what happens if a tag appears in both add_tags and remove_tags) beyond the schema.

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 specific verb pair (add/remove tags) and the resource (assets), plus the bulk scope ('multiple assets at once'). It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it never clarifies its relationship to update_asset, which is the other plausible place tag edits could live.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. Nothing explains that at least one of add_tags/remove_tags should be supplied, or that asset_list and source_id are effectively needed despite being optional in the schema.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the target must be a pre-existing asset; it says nothing about pagination, time-windowing, or the shape of the history, so it clears the lowered bar but adds little.

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?

A single lean sentence with no redundancy, though the boilerplate opener 'This endpoint' is a small waste of the leading, most-scanned position.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. What is missing is disambiguation from the many live-asset and analytics siblings; for a read tool in a crowded namespace, this leaves a real selection gap.

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% for the single live_asset_id parameter, so the schema carries the meaning. The description reinforces that the id refers to a previously created asset but adds no format or syntax detail beyond it — 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?

States a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (history of a live video asset), which is enough to distinguish from create_live_asset or delete_live_asset. However, it never contrasts itself with the closely related get_live_asset_status or live_usage_analytics, so an agent must infer what 'history' means versus 'status'.

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?

There is a faint precondition ('previously been created'), implying the asset must already exist, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool. Several siblings (get_live_asset_status, asset_analytics) plausibly overlap, and the agent is left to guess which to pick.

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

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful prerequisite workflow context and says the call initiates a process, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or what happens to existing state.

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 description is short and front-loads the prerequisite workflow. Its structure is efficient, though the subtitle reference in the final sentence introduces unnecessary confusion.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the description leaves the audio/subtitle scope ambiguous and does not compensate for the partial parameter documentation, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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?

The description does not mention either parameter. With only 50% schema description coverage, it should explain or reinforce what asset_ID and upload_responses represent, especially since the upload_responses array itself is undocumented at the top level.

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 identifies a completion step that follows audio upload and a PUT to returned URLs, so the general purpose is inferable. However, it says the call 'actually add[s] the subtitle to the video,' which is confusing for an audio-upload completion tool and does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like complete_subtitle_upload or upload_subtitles.

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 clearly states the prerequisite sequence: add audio first, receive URLs, complete PUTs to those URLs, then call this tool. It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not conditions, which keeps it from a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the asset can no longer be used to ingest the live stream, i.e. the action is effectively life-cycle terminal. It stops short of mentioning permissions, playback impact, or whether the asset can be recovered.

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 action and immediately followed by the irreversibility caveat. No filler or 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 not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately covers the terminal nature of the action, but omits auth requirements and the effect on existing recordings/playback, which would be useful for a destructive mutation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents live_asset_id fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: marking live assets complete. It is clear an agent would use this to finalize a live asset, though it never distinguishes itself from near-neighbors like delete_live_asset or stop/finalize flows in the sibling list.

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 explains the consequence of completion but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus alternatives such as delete_live_asset. The agent must infer the triggering condition (stream finished) for itself.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds process context about pre-signed URL uploads but does not disclose what completion does to the object, whether retries are safe, or failure behavior.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. The condition is front-loaded before the action, making it easy to scan.

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 a full input schema, output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential usage context. It could be stronger by noting consequences of incomplete parts or finality, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 both the parts array and asset_id are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning 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 states a specific verb and resource: completing a multipart upload after parts are uploaded via pre-signed URL. It distinguishes from abort/list siblings by naming the completion action, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 clearly states the trigger condition: once all parts are uploaded via pre-signed URL, use this endpoint. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context for use is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation with no destruction. The description adds that it 'initiates the process to actually add the subtitle,' clarifying the finalization behavior. It does not mention idempotency risks, error handling, or what happens if upload_responses are incorrectly marked.

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 prerequisite and the action. Every sentence contributes to understanding the workflow. It could be slightly tighter, but there is no wasted text.

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. The description sufficiently explains the workflow context for this finalization tool. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and idempotency, but the core calling context is complete.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action: finalizing the subtitle addition after PUT uploads. It distinguishes this completion step from the earlier upload call (likely upload_subtitles) by describing the workflow. It does not name the sibling tool explicitly, but the verb+resource combination is clear.

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 clearly states the prerequisite sequence: add subtitles first, receive URLs, complete PUT requests, then call this. This is explicit when-to-use guidance tied to a workflow. It does not discuss when not to use or alternatives beyond the implied earlier step.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context: nothing about the fact that ingestion is asynchronous, that processing/transcoding is triggered, that the profile_id overrides other parameters, or that DRM and per-title encoding change downstream output. For a 27-parameter write endpoint, that is a substantial gap.

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?

Only two sentences and no padding, but the first is a generic dictionary definition of 'asset' placed before the actual purpose, so the meaningful statement is not front-loaded. Content is lean but the ordering wastes the opening position.

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 27-parameter creation endpoint with nested transformation objects, the description omits what the agent most needs: which input drives creation, what a successful response contains (even with an output schema, the async nature matters), and how this differs from the other create_* asset siblings. Annotations and schema cover safety and field semantics, but the tool-selection and prerequisite layer is missing.

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% with rich per-field docs (padding, crop, trim, overlays, DRM, resolution, etc.), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about parameters, not even noting that 'input' is the effective source URL and that all fields are technically optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('creates an asset') and explains the domain concept of an asset for Gumlet. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like create_asset_direct_upload, create_live_asset, or asset_audio_upload, so an agent must still infer which creation path applies.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. With siblings such as create_asset_direct_upload and create_live_asset offered, the description should say which ingest path this endpoint is for (e.g. server-side fetch from a URL) but leaves that entirely to inference.

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

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

Annotations confirm a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine value beyond the annotations by disclosing the asynchronous two-step ingestion flow (returned `upload_url` + follow-up PUT) that an agent must execute to complete the operation.

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-loads the core purpose, then the key differentiator, then the completion workflow and docs link. Reasonably tight, though the docs-link sentence could be folded into the preceding workflow sentence.

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?

A rich output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still names the key response field (`upload_url`). The essential gaps an agent needs — that `input` is excluded and that a follow-up PUT is required — are both covered, making it largely complete.

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% across 26 parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation and the baseline is 3. The description only adds a cross-reference to Create Asset parameters and the excluded `input` field, which is useful routing context but not deeper semantic detail.

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 specific verb and resource (creates a video asset via direct local-file upload) and distinguishes itself from its closest sibling by noting that body parameters match Create Asset 'except for the `input` parameter, which this endpoint does not take.' An agent can tell it apart from create_asset without opening either 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?

Clearly frames the use case (uploading from the local file system) and lays out the two-step flow: call this to get `upload_url`, then make a PUT to that URL, with a docs pointer. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it versus create_asset, but the `input` distinction and the upload workflow make the choice inferable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the nesting behavior (parent_id creates a child folder), but says nothing about errors, duplicate names, or effects of repeated calls given the non-idempotent hint.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the optional nesting detail second. Nothing should be cut or moved.

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?

An output schema exists and all parameters are documented, so the description need not explain returns. For a simple create tool the coverage is nearly sufficient, with only the absence of naming/duplication constraints as a gap.

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 the schema already defines name, parent_id, and workspace_id, including that null/omitted parent_id means root-level. The description's mention of optional parent_id is essentially a restatement, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb + resource ('Create a folder') and scopes it to a video workspace, which cleanly separates it from update_folder/delete_folder. It never names a sibling, so it falls short of the top band's explicit differentiation.

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?

The create semantics imply when to use it versus update_folder/delete_folder, and it notes parent_id is optional for nesting. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to an alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing about what an image source is, what credentials are required, or any side effects. With annotations present but zero added context, 2 is appropriate.

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 single sentence is short but entirely redundant with the tool name. It is under-specified rather than concise, so it does not earn its place.

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 complex creation tool with 13 parameters, nested provider objects, and no guidance on source types or required credentials, the description is completely inadequate. Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description fails to orient the agent for this operation.

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 85%, so the schema already documents most parameters, the type enum, and per-provider required fields. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 restates the tool name ('create image source') without adding scope, source types, or distinguishing it from siblings like update_image_source, delete_source, or list_sources. It is a tautology of the name, so it lands at 2.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites such as authentication or source type selection, so it provides no usable usage direction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond that: nothing about required setup (live source, workspace), whether creation is billable, or what state the asset starts in.

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?

Only two sentences and reasonably front-loaded, but the first sentence is definitional filler about what a live asset is rather than what the endpoint does, diluting the actionable content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a zero-required-parameter creation endpoint in a large live-streaming tool family the description omits the context an agent needs to call it correctly or know what to do next.

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?

With 6 parameters at 67% schema coverage, the description supplies no parameter guidance at all, not even noting that all fields are optional (required=[]) or which ones matter for a working live stream. Undocumented fields such as start_at and orientation are left entirely unaddressed.

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 second sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'creates a live streaming asset' pushed to Gumlet. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like create_live_asset_copy or create_asset, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives in this crowded sibling set (create_live_asset_copy, create_asset, live_workspace_create, start_live). The follow-up steps after creation are also unstated.

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

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation, and the description's 'update' is at least directionally consistent with that. However, it discloses nothing beyond the annotation payload: no permission requirements, no note on which fields are mutable vs immutable, no mention of whether updating a live asset interrupts an active stream. For a live-media mutation, that is a meaningful gap.

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 first sentence is a domain glossary entry ('A live asset refers to media content/video that is live-streamed through Gumlet') that consumes half the text without describing this tool's action. The second sentence is the only purpose-bearing claim, and it contradicts the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still fails the core burden: an agent cannot determine whether this creates a copy or updates an asset, what triggers success, or what prerequisites exist for a live-stream mutation with zero required parameters.

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 67%, with start_at carrying an empty schema description and live_asset_id only a terse one. The description adds zero parameter meaning and never clarifies how title, start_at, and live_asset_id relate to the stated 'update' operation, nor why all three are optional for a supposedly mutating call.

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 tool is named create_live_asset_copy (implying creation of a copy) but the description states it 'allows users to update a live streaming asset.' This verb mismatch leaves an agent unable to tell what the tool actually does, and it does not differentiate from the many siblings such as create_live_asset, update_asset, or delete_live_asset.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing whatsoever. With siblings like create_live_asset, complete_live_stream, start_live, and filter_live_assets all operating in the same live-asset domain, the absence of any disambiguation makes the tool effectively unselectable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about duplicate handling, side effects, or permissions. The typo 'wprkspace' also slightly undermines clarity.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and waste-free. It could carry slightly more substance, and the misspelling of 'workspace' is a minor blemish, but the structure is efficient.

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 explained, and parameter descriptions are fully covered by the schema. However, for a non-idempotent mutation tool the description omits any context about constraints, defaults, or what happens on repeat calls, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 all three parameters (title, description, collection_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create new playlist') plus a scope ('inside video wprkspace'), so an agent knows what it does. It does not differentiate from siblings like create_workspace, update_playlist, or create_folder, so it falls short of 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as update_playlist or get_all_playlists. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context such as how 'name' uniqueness is enforced, what happens on conflicting defaults, or the authorization requirements for creating a profile.

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?

Only two sentences, but the first is a confusing framing ('creating multiple video assets') and the second is circular ('a set of parameters that can be referenced... as a single parameter'). It is short yet not front-loaded with the actual verb-resource action.

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 17-parameter creation tool with nested transformation objects, the description is thin: it gives a conceptual definition but omits the reusable-profile lifecycle (referenced later at video creation), name-conflict behavior, and required setup. Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the creation semantics remain under-specified.

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% across 17 nested parameters, so all per-parameter documentation lives in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 explains what a Video profile conceptually is and implies creation, but never states the action directly ('creates a profile'). The opening sentence about 'creating multiple video assets using the same set of parameters' describes a downstream benefit rather than this tool's verb, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like update_profile, get_profile, or list_profiles.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives (update_profile, list_profiles), despite several sibling profile tools existing. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and non-idempotent behavior, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context: it doesn't clarify whether calling this replaces existing chapters, what happens when chapters is omitted, or any auth/rate constraints. Given the create/update ambiguity, this is a gap.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. 'This endpoint will' is minor boilerplate, but no waste; appropriately sized for the description's scope.

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?

Output schema exists and parameter schema is fully described, so the description need not explain returns or params. Annotations cover the mutation safety profile. However, the combined create/update semantics remain unexplained, which is a notable gap for correct invocation of a mutation 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 both asset_id and chapters (including nested fields) are documented in the schema. The description provides no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline.

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 specific verb (create/update) and resource (video asset chapters), so an agent knows it deals with chapter management. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_asset or create_asset, but the resource is distinct enough.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no alternatives named. The description only declares existence, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when chapters need modification.

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

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention the secret_token authentication requirement, whether the URL must be reachable, or what happens on duplicate registration.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing wastes space, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of all routing and behavioral detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a write tool with four all-optional parameters and no annotations about permissions or side effects, the description should at minimum indicate required inputs and auth behavior; it supplies none of this.

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 the schema already documents url, sources, triggers, and secret_token, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no meaning, and notably does not clarify that all four parameters are optional (required is empty), which is non-obvious for a 'create' tool.

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 verb 'Creates' and resource 'webhook listener' are stated, but the sentence essentially restates the tool name (create_webhook) with no scoping detail. It does not distinguish itself from update_webhook, delete_webhook, or list_webhooks beyond the verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative update/delete/list webhook siblings, and no prerequisites. The agent gets no signal about when creating a webhook is the right action.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention that this is a write operation, whether names must be unique, or what credentials/provider config is expected. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing.

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 short sentences with no padding, so it is concise. However, it is not front-loaded with the action — the reader never learns what the tool does, so the brevity reflects omission rather than efficiency.

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 16-parameter create tool with nested provider configs (aws, gcs, azure, zoom, etc.), an output schema, and zero required params, the description is far too thin. It never states that it creates a workspace, never distinguishes the provider branches, and never mentions the name/type interaction that the schema hints at.

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% with 16 parameters, nested provider objects and an enum for 'type', so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning; it even duplicates the workspace blurb verbatim as the 'type' description. Baseline 3 applies.

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 explains what a workspace is conceptually ('top-level entities... organize videos') but never states the tool's action. 'create_workspace' creating a workspace is left to be inferred from the name alone, so an agent gets no verb+resource statement from the text.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. Siblings like update_workspace, list_workspaces, get_workspace and live_workspace_create are never mentioned, so the agent must guess when creation is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful consequence detail beyond those hints: removal from storage and inaccessible associated URLs. It does not state permission requirements or whether deletion can be undone.

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 with the primary action front-loaded and the consequence following. No filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter deletion tool with annotations, schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the key operational consequence. Some details, such as permissions or recoverability, are absent but not critical given the rich annotations.

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%, and the single asset_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'unique asset id,' which is consistent but not richer than the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already carries parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb (removes) and resource (asset) with a clear identifier (unique asset id). It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this single-asset deletion from siblings like assets_delete_many or delete_live_asset.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many delete alternatives. It only describes the operation itself, leaving selection among deletion siblings to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the cascade behavior: descendant folders and contained assets are also removed by a backend workflow. It does not say whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, which would have been the final piece.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the destructive cascade fact is front-loaded right after the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive, cascading mutation this covers the most important unknown (what else gets deleted), and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, it omits permanence/recoverability and any permission requirements, which matter given the presence of `recover` and `list_recycle_bin` siblings.

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% and both parameters (folder_id, workspace_id) are documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no extra semantics such as id format or scope restrictions, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('Delete a folder') and immediately extends it with the cascade scope. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations like delete_asset or delete_playlist by resource name, but it never names an alternative or sibling explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. required permissions), and no mention of the sibling `recover` / `list_recycle_bin` tools that imply deletion may be reversible. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond the annotation by specifying the concrete consequences: storage is freed and associated URLs become inaccessible, which tells the agent what is actually destroyed.

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, zero filler, and the consequence of the operation is front-loaded alongside the identification requirement. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the description covers the destructive side effect. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates that the id uniquely identifies the asset, adding no format or source detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb (removes) and resource (live asset) plus the identifying key (live asset id). It is distinguishable from generic delete_asset by consistently scoping to live assets, though it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.

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?

The description explains what happens on invocation but gives no guidance on when to choose this over siblings like delete_asset, assets_delete_many, or the live_workspace delete variants, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether deletion is permanent or recoverable (a recycle bin exists per list_recycle_bin), nor what happens to assets inside the playlist. Given the annotation coverage the bar is lower, but no added context is provided.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding — appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool. It loses a point for the typo "plalist," which is a minor quality defect but not a comprehension blocker.

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 simple single-parameter delete whose destructive/idempotent semantics are fully captured by annotations, nothing critical is missing from a calling standpoint. The only real gap is not stating whether the deletion is reversible or how playlist contents are affected.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description cannot add much. It repeats "by playlist ID" without new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ("Deletes") and resource ("playlist") with the identifying parameter named, so an agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent deletion tools (delete_asset, delete_folder) or from sibling playlist mutation tools like remove_asset_playlist, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as remove_asset_playlist, update_playlist, or get_all_playlists. No prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing a non-obvious side effect — dependent video assets are retained rather than cascaded. It does not state permission requirements or whether the deletion is recoverable, which keeps it from a 5.

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, zero preamble, with the destructive action front-loaded ahead of the retention caveat. Minor phrasing awkwardness ('will remain as it is') keeps it just short of ideal.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the key behavioral fact an agent needs (assets survive). It could add whether the action is reversible or what authorization is required, but it is nearly complete.

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% and the single `profile_id` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description only restates that the id identifies the profile to delete, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('removes a profile given its unique `profile_id`') and immediately scopes the blast radius by noting video assets created with the profile survive. That side-effect clause is what separates it from siblings like delete_asset or delete_source, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never mentions sibling alternatives (e.g., update_profile, list_profiles) or any precondition such as confirming the profile is unused before deletion.

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

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: all image delivery using the subdomain will be stopped. It does not mention permissions or whether the deletion is reversible, but the key operational consequence is disclosed.

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 description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately follows with the most important consequence, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 simple one-parameter deletion tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential action and side effect. It could be slightly stronger by noting permission requirements or confirming irreversible behavior, but it is largely complete for agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single required parameter, including where to find the image source ID on the Gumlet dashboard or via the list source API. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already 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 states a specific verb and resource: it removes an image source. It also clarifies the scope by noting that image delivery through the source's subdomain will stop, which helps distinguish it from sibling delete tools such as delete_asset or delete_workspace. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the purpose is clear.

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: use this to delete an image source. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like update_image_source, image_purge, or purge_image_cache, nor does it state prerequisites or when deletion should be avoided. It provides impact context but not routing guidance.

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

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the operating profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the delete action, such as permanence, authorization needs, or downstream effects.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and target immediately.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not need to explain return values, but it still lacks usage context and any indication of when this deletion should be chosen over other webhook operations.

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%, and the single webhook_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb and resource: delete a webhook listener endpoint. It identifies the correct resource among siblings such as create_webhook, update_webhook, and list_webhooks, but does not explicitly differentiate scope or routing conditions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description gives a bare action statement with no usage context.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the delete cascades to all assets in the workspace, removes them from storage, and makes associated URLs inaccessible. This cascade disclosure is the key behavioral fact an agent needs.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence immediately after. No filler, though 'All the asset' has a minor grammatical slip.

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 and annotations covering the destructive/idempotent profile, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource and the cascade side effect. It stops just short of explicitly flagging permanence, though destructiveHint implies 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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already explains workspace_id and how to obtain it. The description calls it an 'asset id', which is slightly imprecise relative to the schema's naming, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verb+resource: it removes a video workspace. However, it then says 'given its unique asset id' when the parameter is actually workspace_id, which introduces a small terminology mismatch. It is clearly distinguishable from delete_asset or delete_folder by naming the workspace resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than delete_asset, delete_live_asset, or update_workspace, and no prerequisites or warnings about the operation being irreversible. The agent gets a purpose but no routing context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds an authorization constraint (owner/admin only) that annotations cannot express, which is exactly the kind of extra context the rubric credits. It stops short of describing pagination semantics or result ordering.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the access caveat — an appropriate size for the tool. The 'Please note that' framing is slightly padded but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the required access role is stated. Still missing for a 5-parameter filtered read tool: default behavior when date_range or activity_type is omitted, and how page_number/page_size interact — gaps the schema alone doesn't fully close.

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?

The description mentions no parameters at all. With schema description coverage at 60%, page_size and the date_range object lack descriptions and the description does not compensate, leaving the agent dependent on schema inference for filtering and paging behavior.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get audit logs for the user activity in your organisation'), so an agent immediately knows what it retrieves. No sibling tool in the list covers audit logs, so differentiating isn't strictly needed, but the description adds no explicit scoping (time span, org scope) beyond the generic statement.

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?

The description gives one concrete prerequisite — only `owner` and `admin` role users can access the endpoint — which is genuinely useful gating information. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over related tools (e.g., analytics or webhook_history) or how the optional filters should be combined.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the scope qualifier 'this organization'; it says nothing about how the org is determined or what data is returned, though output schema covers the latter.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though it is closer to minimal than rich.

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 zero-parameter read tool with a full output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never explains how the target organization is resolved (token/session context) nor hints at the sibling relationships for billing lookups.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates. Baseline 4 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get billing details') with a clear scope ('for this organization'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like update_billing_details, fetch_upcoming_invoice, or list_invoices.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_billing_details (the mutation counterpart) or fetch_upcoming_invoice/list_invoices. Usage is only implied by the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no scope, no auth requirements, no indication of what 'organization data' comprises.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no bloat, but 'You can ... using this API' is filler phrasing that consumes the whole budget without conveying information. Concise but empty.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters or nested objects to cover. What remains missing is any indication of scope or what 'organization data' means, which for a getter with many similar siblings leaves the agent under-informed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description neither helps nor misleads here.

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 verb ('get') and resource ('organization data'), so the basic purpose is legible, but it is vague about what organization data is returned and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like fetch_user, fetch_billing_details, or get_workspace.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. In a toolset with fetch_user, fetch_billing_details, and get_workspace, the agent gets no signal about when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (e.g., which subscription/account scope the 'upcoming' invoice belongs to), so it is only minimum viable.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is parameter-free. Still, the description omits the scope qualifier (whose upcoming invoice, on what basis it is 'upcoming') that would make the definition self-sufficient for a billing 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for or elaborate on.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get details about upcoming invoice.' An agent knows what it retrieves. However, it does not distinguish itself from the adjacent siblings list_invoices or fetch_billing_details, so the boundary must be inferred from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The word 'upcoming' implies it targets the next billing cycle rather than invoice history, but the description never says to use list_invoices for past invoices or fetch_billing_details for broader billing data.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no auth/scope requirements, no indication of whether an identifier is needed, no caveats.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. The one clause it contains is front-loaded but low-information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and with no parameters and full annotation coverage the burden is low. Still, it leaves ambiguity about which user is fetched, which matters given many sibling account/config tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description neither helps nor hurts here.

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?

"Gives information about the user account" states a resource (user account) but uses a vague verb ("gives information") and largely restates the name fetch_user. It does weakly distinguish from fetch_org, but it never says whose account (the authenticated user's? a specified user's?) or what information is returned.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as fetch_org, get_profile, or get_workspace. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the fact that results are scoped to one live source and status-filtered; it says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or empty-result handling despite the size/offset params.

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?

One compact sentence with no redundancy, and the filter and scope are front-loaded. The only minor waste is the boilerplate opener 'This endpoint', which conveys nothing an agent needs.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented schema, and an existing output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it is adequate for a simple filtered-list call. It still falls short on routing versus sibling list tools and on pagination expectations, which are the remaining gaps for this 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%, and the schema itself documents size, offset, status (with the full enum of values), and live_source_id thoroughly. The description merely names two of those parameters, adding no syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (lists) and resource (live assets) scoped to a live_source_id and optionally filtered by status, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like list_assets or get_live_asset_status, leaving the agent to infer which listing tool applies.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative. Notably it does not explain the difference from get_live_asset_status (single-asset lookup) or list_assets, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent faces in this crowded sibling set.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'all playlists for a workspace' scope and says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or behavior when the workspace is empty — useful but thin beyond the structured hints.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and scope, with no filler. It is slightly too terse to be maximally helpful, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, leaving the description only needing scope and usage context. It provides scope but omits when to choose it over sibling list/get tools and whether the optional collection_id means all workspaces.

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% and the single collection_id parameter is already documented as 'Workspace ID'. The description merely echoes the workspace scoping rather than adding format, default, or omission semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (get) and resource (all playlists) scoped to a workspace, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from neighbors like get_playlist_assets or create_playlist, but the read-all scope is self-evident.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_playlist_assets (single playlist contents) or the paginated list_* family. No preconditions, no mention that collection_id is optional or what happens when it is omitted.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the constraint that the asset must already exist; it says nothing about auth needs, error behavior for unknown ids, or pagination. With annotations carrying the load, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the 'This endpoint retrieves...' prefix is mildly boilerplate. Every word still earns its place.

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?

Complexity is low (one param, no nesting), an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the absence of any pointer to sibling read tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 asset_id is fully documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description's 'previously created asset' adds a slight constraint but no format, source, or example 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 states a specific verb and resource ('retrieves the details of an asset'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_assets or asset_analytics beyond the singular 'an asset' phrasing.

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 only implied: the phrase 'previously created' signals the tool is for a known asset id rather than discovery, which nudges away from list_assets. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the entire safety profile of a simple read. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on error behavior for a missing/invalid id, no scoping caveats — so it earns no credit for behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain return values. It is nearly complete for a trivial by-id read, though a pointer to list_folders for the multi-folder case would make it fully sufficient.

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% (both folder_id and workspace_id documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or cross-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single folder') plus the lookup key ('by id'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_folders, which also returns folder data, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the obvious alternative, list_folders, or when a single-folder fetch is preferred over listing. Usage is only implied by the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds no behavioral context such as error behavior for an unknown id or what 'all details' includes, leaving it at minimum viability.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a detail-fetch tool the description never clarifies scope (what 'all details' means) or failure modes, making it adequate but not complete.

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 the single image_source_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where to find the value. The description contributes nothing beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('image source') with the promise of 'all details', so an agent knows this is a single-resource detail fetch. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like list_sources or get_profile beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs list_sources (which is mentioned only inside the parameter description as a way to obtain the id) or update_image_source. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the prerequisite that the asset already exists, but says nothing about behavior on a nonexistent or malformed id; with an output schema present, return details are handled elsewhere.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the only minor bloat is the trailing 'that has previously been created,' which is informative but slightly redundant with 'live' in the action sense.

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 rich annotations, a single well-documented parameter, and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It nonetheless omits any routing cue against the many sibling asset tools and any error behavior, which an agent would want for a lookup endpoint.

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?

There is a single parameter (live_asset_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or ranging detail for the id beyond what the schema states, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 states a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (details of a live video asset), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish it from close siblings like get_asset_details or filter_live_assets, leaving the agent to infer which asset type or operation applies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the phrase 'that has previously been created' implies a prerequisite but names no conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. The agent must guess the routing between this, get_asset_details, and filter_live_assets.

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

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or auth needs, and its claim of 'all assets' is potentially misleading because the schema exposes page_size and page_number parameters.

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 description is two short sentences, front-loads the core operation, and contains no filler. Every clause contributes to identifying the resource scope and the ordering option.

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?

Given full schema description coverage, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient for a simple read-only list operation. The main missing contextual element is pagination behavior, which matters because page_size defaults to 10 despite the word 'all'.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including sort_by, sort_order, page_size, and page_number. The description only restates that ordering can be chosen, adding no syntax, defaults, or meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get/list assets that are inside a playlist. The phrase 'inside playlist' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_assets, get_all_playlists, add_asset_playlist, and remove_asset_playlist.

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?

The description says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as list_assets or get_all_playlists. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling-tool routing cues.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the profile must pre-exist, which is light context rather than rich behavioral detail.

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?

A single clean sentence with no waste, though 'This endpoint retrieves' is slightly boilerplate-restating the tool name rather than front-loading new information.

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 simple single-parameter read with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description is essentially sufficient. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit routing to list_profiles versus this 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents profile_id. The description adds no format, syntax, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific verb (retrieves) and resource (details of a video profile), scoped to a single, previously created profile. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_profiles or update_profile, but the read-singular intent is clear.

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?

The phrase 'previously been created' implies the profile must already exist, giving mild context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as list_profiles for enumeration. Usage is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by mapping canonical language values to specific package registries and enumerating accepted aliases, though it says nothing about output shape or rate limits.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter mapping immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers the only thing an agent must get right — the language value — and is essentially complete.

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 0% (the single 'language' param is an undocumented string), so the description must carry the burden — and it does, giving the two canonical values and a broad alias list (py, node, js, ts, npm, pypi). It stops short of an exhaustive enum, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 specific verb+resource combination: fetch install commands and a usage snippet for an official Gumlet SDK. It is easy to distinguish from the sibling list_sdks, though the description never names that sibling or explicitly says how the two differ.

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 argument examples ('Pass language=python ... language=nodejs') but there is no explicit when-to-use vs list_sdks guidance and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds only scope ('all the data') and does not disclose auth needs or response behavior beyond what the annotations and output schema provide.

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?

It is short, but the single sentence is awkwardly phrased and includes the redundant qualifier 'that has previously been created.' It is concise without being well structured.

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 simple GET-by-ID tool with rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It only lacks sibling differentiation and usage context, which are minor gaps given the structured metadata.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, including how to obtain the workspace_id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource: get all data of a video workspace. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_workspaces, but the singular workspace phrasing and required workspace_id make the intent fairly clear.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_workspaces or other sibling tools. It also does not state prerequisites such as needing an existing workspace ID.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the cross-resource, cross-workspace scope, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or result grouping despite offsets being available in the schema.

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 description is a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and scope.

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?

Given the output schema and fully documented parameters, the description need not explain return values. However, it omits any mention of pagination across resource types or how results are presented, which would be helpful for a multi-resource search tool with seven parameters.

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. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource scope ('video assets / playlists / folders etc across workspaces'). It distinguishes itself from scoped list tools via 'across workspaces', but does not explicitly name the siblings it replaces or excludes.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The phrase 'across workspaces' implies a broad search, but there is no explicit direction on when to prefer global_search over list_assets, get_all_playlists, or other specific retrieval tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as what gets purged, whether the action is immediate, or what happens to in-flight image requests.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is not front-loaded with the required source_id constraint, but it avoids unnecessary length.

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 destructive cache-purge operation with a sibling that appears to overlap heavily, the description should clarify scope and distinguish usage. The annotations and output schema cover some context, but the description itself leaves critical selection and caution information unstated.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond that, and it does not clarify the relationship between the required source_id and the paths array.

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 states a purge-cache operation for image paths, which is a clear verb-resource pairing. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'purge_image_cache', and the phrase 'any image path' is misleading because a required source_id is needed and paths is an array parameter.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially the similarly named 'purge_image_cache'. It omits prerequisites, required permissions, and any conditions that select this tool over siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not mention the 60-day timeframe cap, the need for a workspace_id, or any pagination/response behavior, all of which are behavioral facts the agent needs to call this correctly.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than a tight purposeful summary.

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 tool with nested filter/aggregate objects, an output schema, and several sibling aggregation endpoints, this description is far too thin. It omits the timeframe constraint, the workspace scoping requirement, and any distinction between this and analytics_aggregated_data, leaving the agent without what it needs to call the right 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 the schema already documents filters, aggregate, timeframe, and workspace_id in detail, including the 60-day limit and exact-match constraint. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('retrieves') and a resource ('aggregated data of the given metrics'), which is more than a tautology. However, it gives no differentiation from the many closely-named siblings such as analytics_aggregated_data, insights_breakdown_data, and insights_chart_data, so an agent cannot tell which aggregation tool to pick from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance anywhere in the description. With three near-identical siblings (analytics_aggregated_data, insights_breakdown_data, insights_chart_data), the routing question is the most important thing to answer and it is left entirely to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about the 60-day window, pagination behavior, breakdown limits, or the fact that it is a scoped breakdown query versus aggregate/chart variants.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise. But that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than cutting redundancy, so it sits at the minimum-viable level.

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?

The schema is rich and an output schema exists, so return values and parameter formats need not be restated. Still, for a nested, multi-breakdown analytics tool surrounded by many similar siblings, the description omits the routing information (when to use this vs analytics_breakdown_data / insights_aggregated_data) that is the main thing an agent needs.

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 the schema itself documents filters, breakdowns, date_range, and workspace_id thoroughly. The description mentions 'metrics' and 'breakdown field' but adds no meaning beyond what the enum-backed breakdowns and metrics properties already convey. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (retrieves) and a resource (breakdown data) plus the notion of metrics by breakdown field, so the general purpose is legible. However, it fails to distinguish itself from close siblings like analytics_breakdown_data, insights_aggregated_data, and insights_chart_data, which all sound like they retrieve analytics data. An agent cannot confidently pick this over its near-namesake 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives among the many sibling analytics tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. workspace_id requirement). The agent must infer selection purely from the name and schema.

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