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.