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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about rate limits, pagination, the 60-day constraint (left to the schema), or what the response contains. With annotations doing the work, this is only minimally acceptable.

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, so nothing needs trimming. But the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency; the sentence does not earn much for the agent.

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. What remains missing is differentiation from the analytics/insights siblings and any hint of how the nested aggregate/filter structures are meant to be combined, which matters for a complex multi-part query 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 nested filters, aggregate, timeframe, and workspace_id fields are all documented in the schema itself. The description restates only 'the given metrics' and adds no semantics about how filters, aggregate functions, and timeframe combine. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries full parameter burden.

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 (aggregated data of given metrics), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as insights_aggregated_data, analytics_breakdown_data, analytics_chart_data, or retrieve_analytics, all of which plausibly read analytics data. An agent cannot tell which of these to pick from the description 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 mention of prerequisites (e.g., fetching a workspace_id first), and no reference to alternative analytics tools. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the name and the large sibling list.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'This does not change assets or delivery' largely restates destructiveHint=false, and the 60-day cap is duplicated in the schema, so net new behavioral context is limited. It does usefully confirm single-workspace scoping.

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 operation and its scope front-loaded; no wasted preamble. The second sentence is mildly redundant against the read-only annotations, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 all four parameters are schema-documented. However, for a tool with nested filter/breakdown objects, the description omits the segmentation (filters) capability and pagination behavior entirely, and gives no hook for choosing it over sibling analytics 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents workspace_id, date_range, breakdowns, and filters in detail. The description adds nothing about parameter format, filter operators, or the 1-3 breakdown limit, 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 and resource ('Read viewer metrics'), plus scope qualifiers: one workspace, grouped by a breakdown field, ≤60 day range. This distinguishes it from aggregate-style siblings, but it never clarifies how it differs from insights_breakdown_data, the closest sibling with an almost identical 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named, despite a crowded analytics family (analytics_aggregated_data, insights_breakdown_data, viewer_analytics_data, retrieve_analytics). The 60-day limit hints at one selection condition but the agent must infer the rest.

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 them — no note on pagination behavior despite page_size/page_number params, no latency/rate-limit context, no explanation of what the aggregation grouping does.

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 padding. It is efficient, though the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 6 parameters, a nested date_range object, a metrics enum and over a dozen analytics siblings, an output schema does relieve the need to explain return values, but the description still leaves the agent without routing guidance or any behavioral detail needed to call this correctly against alternatives.

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, pagination and the date_range object. The description adds no meaning on top of that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ("Get video analytics") and a scoping qualifier ("for a single asset") that separates it from org-wide siblings like analytics_aggregated_data or retrieve_analytics. However it never names those alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 which sibling analytics tool to pick instead. The crowded analytics family (aggregated/breakdown/chart/insights/retrieve variants) makes this omission costly.

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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds only the batch scope ('at once'), which is modest context. It says nothing about partial-failure behavior, permission requirements, or that removals are irreversible across many assets — notable gaps for a destructive batch mutation.

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 zero filler and the batch scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally informative.

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, multi-parameter batch mutation with no required parameters declared, the description is too thin: it never clarifies that asset_list / source_id are needed to target anything, nor how add vs. remove interact. The output schema covers return values, but the behavioral and targeting contract is left implicit.

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 each parameter (add_tags, remove_tags, source_id, asset_list) is documented in the schema itself, so baseline is 3. The description adds no format, limit, or constraint details 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?

States a specific verb pair (add/remove tags) on a specific resource (assets) with explicit batch scope ('multiple assets at once'). This clearly distinguishes it from single-asset siblings like update_asset, though it does not name any sibling directly.

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 alternatives named. The bulk scope implies batch editing is the use case, but the agent gets no explicit routing or exclusion criteria.

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 the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the safety bar is lower. The description adds useful sequencing context and the effect ('attaches those tracks'), but says nothing about failure handling or the meaning of the upload_responses status, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded sentences that state purpose first, then the dependency. Every sentence contributes; no redundant restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a completion tool the description covers the prerequisite and effect adequately; the only gap is not clarifying the upload_responses payload, which overlaps with the parameter issue.

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%: asset_ID is documented in the schema, but the top-level upload_responses array lacks a description. The description mentions the PUT-to-URL step but never explains the upload_responses array or how to populate it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (finish adding) and resource (audio tracks to an existing video asset), and makes clear this is the completion/attachment step. The sibling distinction is only implicit via 'the add-audio call', but an agent can still tell this apart from the URL-generation step.

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?

Explicit prerequisite: 'Call this only after the audio files have been PUT to the upload URLs from the add-audio call.' This tells the agent exactly when in the workflow to invoke it. It does not name the sibling tool verbatim or state what to do if some uploads failed, so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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 this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world creation with no destructive hint. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't explain that ingestion is asynchronous, that a URL must be fetched, or what happens on repeated calls, despite the 27-param surface.

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 are reasonably tight, but the opening sentence is definitional background about what an asset is rather than actionable instruction, making the front-loaded portion partly filler for an agent that only needs to know how to call the tool.

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 is far too thin. It omits the ingest workflow (URL download, async processing) and any indication of which of the many optional blocks matter, even though the output schema relieves it of explaining return values.

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 carries all parameter semantics and the description need not repeat them. Per the coverage rule, the baseline is 3 even though the description contributes no parameter detail of its own.

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 the verb (creates) and resource (an asset) and defines what an asset is, so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings such as create_asset_direct_upload, create_live_asset, or create_image_source, leaving the agent to guess which creation endpoint applies to its case.

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 endpoint versus alternatives like create_asset_direct_upload or create_live_asset, nor any mention of prerequisites or which input (URL ingest) this endpoint expects. The 'when' 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=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the response returns an `upload_url` and a PUT request is required to actually transfer the file, plus the `input` parameter is rejected. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or what happens to an abandoned upload.

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 front-loaded sentences: purpose, the parameter-divergence caveat, then the response/next-step contract with a docs link. No filler and the critical next step (PUT to upload_url) is stated before the reference link.

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 26-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the missing two-step upload contract that the schema cannot express, and the output schema covers the return shape. It stops short of permissions, failure handling, or upload URL expiry, which would round it out.

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 is 3. The description adds one genuinely useful semantic note: all body parameters mirror Create Asset except `input`, which this endpoint omits. That is modest but real added meaning over the schema, which cannot express the cross-tool relationship.

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 allowing upload ... from the local file system') and pins down the workflow with the create-then-PUT upload_url sequence. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from create_asset by noting the one body parameter (`input`) it does not accept.

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 implies usage through the local-file-system upload flow, but never states explicitly when to choose this over create_asset or complete_multipart_upload, nor any prerequisites. It points to external docs for the upload step, which partially compensates but leaves selection guidance 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=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 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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which covers the safety profile, and the description adds conceptual context about what a profile represents. However, it does not disclose behavior the agent would care about: whether repeated calls with the same name create duplicates or error, whether a workspace scope is needed, or what validation applies to the 18 optional 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?

Only two sentences, but the second largely restates the first ('same set of parameters' / 'a set of parameters ... as a single parameter'). It is also mis-front-loaded: the leading clause is about creating video assets, not about creating a profile, so the agent reads the wrong operation first.

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 an 18-parameter creation tool, the description leaves out the essential workflow context: that the created profile id is then consumed by create_asset, and that a name defaults to 'Gumlet-Profile-1'. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the usage linkage 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% and every nested object (pad, crop, trim, text_overlay, image_overlay, animated_gif) is documented inline, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable at this coverage level but means no bonus.

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 defines what a video profile IS (a reusable set of parameters) but never states the action plainly: it opens with 'Gumlet provides the functionality of creating multiple video assets', which describes the benefit rather than the operation ('create a profile'). It is understandable but does not distinguish itself from siblings like create_asset, update_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?

No when-to-use guidance: it never says to call this before create_asset, that the resulting profile is referenced as a single parameter, or that update_profile/delete_profile exist for lifecycle management. The lifecycle relationship is only implied by the phrase 'referenced/used while creating a video'.

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 the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: Gumlet delivers JSON POSTs per matching event and transmits secret_token in the x-gumlet-token header, which tells the agent how the created resource actually behaves at runtime.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then runtime behavior, then a pointer to the payload documentation. No filler and nothing important buried.

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 all four parameters are fully described in the schema. The description covers the creation semantics and delivery mechanism; the only gap is that it never notes that all parameters are optional or what a minimally valid webhook requires.

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 carries the parameter detail. The description reinforces url and secret_token but repeats the schema's own wording for secret_token and says nothing at all about sources or triggers, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new webhook listener'), which cleanly separates it from update_webhook, delete_webhook, and list_webhooks. It never names a sibling or an exclusion, so it stays at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. plan limits, permissions), and no mention of alternatives such as update_webhook for modifying an existing registration. Usage is only weakly implied by 'Creates a new webhook listener.'

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. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the generic workspace concept—nothing about permissions, storage-type side effects, or what happens when configuration is incomplete. It does not contradict the annotations, but it 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?

The description is short and wastes little space, but it is not front-loaded around the actual action of creating a workspace. Its two sentences describe workspace semantics rather than the operation the tool performs.

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 mutation tool with 17 parameters, many conditional storage-type objects, no required top-level parameters, and an output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the creation action, storage-type selection logic, and any guidance on required fields for each workspace type, even though the schema captures those details.

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 the many nested storage objects, enum values, and type-conditional fields. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; its only relevant sentence duplicates the schema's type description. With full schema coverage, 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?

The description explains what a video workspace is conceptualized as, but never states that this tool creates one. It does not distinguish create_workspace from siblings like get_workspace, list_workspaces, update_workspace, or delete_workspace, leaving the agent to infer the action from the tool 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?

It mentions that workspaces organize videos for teams or use cases, but gives no guidance on when to call create_workspace versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling references.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's main job is to add role/auth context — which it does by stating the owner/admin access requirement. It omits practical behavioural detail such as result volume, pagination limits, or whether logs are retained indefinitely, but the auth disclosure is a meaningful addition.

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 tool's purpose front-loaded before the access caveat. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations, and every clause carries 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?

The tool returns an output schema, so return-value documentation is not the description's responsibility, and the access prerequisite is stated. What is missing is any hint about pagination interplay (page_size default 100 / max 500 vs page_number) or whether date_range is effectively required in practice, which an agent would need before constructing a sensible first call.

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 adds nothing about any of the five parameters. Schema description coverage is only 60%: page_size has no description at all, and date_range lacks a top-level explanation even though its nested fields are documented. For a filtering tool where the value depends on combining date_range, user_email, and activity_type, this is a real gap.

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'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from analytics-data siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but no sibling competes for the same job, so differentiation is achieved by the resource noun itself.

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 permission prerequisite ('only owner and admin role users') is a genuine usage constraint that helps an agent decide whether the call is even viable. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over related retrieval tools, nor any note on expected call frequency or filtering strategy when a wide date range is used.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the 'all' qualifier, with no mention of result-set size, pagination, or ordering — modest added value over the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriately sized for a trivial one-parameter read. It is terse to the point of lacking any qualifying clause, 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?

For a simple scoped read with full annotation coverage, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema, the description supplies the essential scope. Only absent details are pagination/ordering behavior, which are secondary given the structured fields available.

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 one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains collection_id as 'Workspace ID'. The description's phrase 'given workspace' reinforces but does not add semantics beyond that, 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 and resource ('Get all playlists') plus a scope ('for given workspace'), which is clearly distinct from sibling mutations like create_playlist/delete_playlist and from get_playlist_assets. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is left partly to naming inference.

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 scope phrase 'for given workspace' — the agent can infer it lists playlists in one workspace. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when a different tool applies (get_playlist_assets, list_workspaces), and no prerequisites or pagination caveats.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the per-language return mapping, but says nothing about error behavior for an unsupported language value, and an output schema already covers the return payload.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the concrete value-to-result mapping, then the aliases. Every clause adds information an agent needs; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the return, the description is nearly complete: purpose, valid inputs, aliases. The only gap is unspecified behavior for unknown language strings.

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 0% and there are no enums, so the description must carry the parameter burden — and it does, enumerating concrete values (python, nodejs) plus a full alias set (py, node, js, ts, javascript, typescript, npm, pypi). This is exactly the compensation expected for an undocumented single-parameter 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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('install commands and a usage snippet for an official Gumlet SDK'), which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling list_sdks, so an agent still has to infer which one to reach for.

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 usage context is implied (call it when you need SDK install instructions for a given language), and the alias list helps the agent supply a valid input. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. list_sdks guidance and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own (no pagination, result size limits, or scoping notes), so it contributes little beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is so sparse that it leaves obvious questions unanswered. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than helpful concision.

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 schema itself is well documented. However, for a tool with four nested, enum-heavy parameters and numerous confusingly similar siblings, the total absence of usage or differentiation context leaves the agent unable to confidently select 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%, so the nested filters, aggregate, timeframe, and workspace_id parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, 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?

The description states a verb (retrieves) and a resource (aggregated data for given metrics), so the basic purpose is discernible. However, 'aggregated data of the given metrics' is vague and gives no basis for distinguishing it from near-identical siblings like analytics_aggregated_data or 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 the many competing analytics/insights siblings. Nothing indicates context, prerequisites, or which family (insights vs analytics) applies.

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 not open world. The description adds a behavioral constraint (date range of at most 60 days) that is not in annotations, but the statement 'This does not change assets or delivery' is redundant. No auth, rate limit, or output format details are 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core functionality is front-loaded, and the secondary clarification is brief and non-redundant in structure.

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 an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential purpose and a key constraint (60-day limit). It does not explain breakdown array limits or filter behavior, but those are in the schema. The lack of sibling differentiation is a minor gap for an agent choosing among similar analytics 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats schema-level details like 'grouped by a breakdown field' and 'date range of at most 60 days' without adding syntax or meaning beyond what is in the schema. 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 states a specific verb (Read), resource (viewer metrics), and scope (one workspace, grouped by a breakdown field, date range of at most 60 days). It clearly distinguishes itself from generic asset management tools, but it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like analytics_breakdown_data or insights_aggregated_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides a constraint (max 60 days) and notes it doesn't change assets, but does not say when to choose this over other analytics tools or what prerequisites exist.

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 readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds only 'members-only channel' as scope context and does not disclose authorization requirements, duplicate-invite behavior, rate limits, or what happens when an invitation is processed.

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 redundant or filler content. 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?

The schema and annotations are rich enough to cover parameters and safety profile, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, the description omits sibling differentiation from 'invite_channel_viewers_csv' and gives no prerequisites, leaving an agent with incomplete selection context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.