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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: config:write permission required, default free access with priced access options, cover-image rules (asset's own picture or thumbnail_url, png/jpeg/webp up to 1 MB, required for heroes and music), and the loss mode where an invalid asset is dropped at pack-open. It does not explain what the destructiveHint=true actually destroys, e.g. whether re-publishing replaces an existing publication.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, then constraints follow. Dense with em-dash clauses but nearly every clause carries a distinct constraint (permissions, cover rules, validation prerequisite); slightly overloaded for a single paragraph.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers what is needed to call it correctly: prerequisites, permission scope, input source, cover requirements, singular-vs-pack output shape, and the failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to avoid a bad call 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it explains that access takes the app's Workshop access options (free by default, otherwise a price in the app's currency), that title defaults to the first asset's title, and the format/size constraints on thumbnail_url. This is meaningful semantics the schema only gestures at.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('video-studio assets ... into the Workshop of ONE app'), plus the resulting effect (players find them in the asset feed). It names the upstream producer (generate_asset) and the validator sibling, so an agent can place it in the pipeline rather than confuse it with generate_asset or save_workshop.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: check assets with validate_asset of @idosgames/mcp first, because the studio drops invalid assets. It also clarifies the input source (generate_asset output or hand-written assets). It stops short of naming when not to use it (e.g. updating an existing publication vs. creating one).

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