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

Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is asynchronous (must poll the returned job) and explicitly does not generate. Annotations cover safety/idempotency but say nothing about async behavior; this description fills that gap. It does not state auth requirements or expected latency, keeping it below 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the async/polling behavior and the 'no generation' boundary. No wasted words.

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 async behavior is noted. But with 0% parameter coverage and no parameter guidance, the definition is incomplete for an agent to call it confidently, especially the idempotency_key semantics.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it mentions no parameters. project_id and idempotency_key are undocumented in both schema and description; an agent would not know the format or purpose of idempotency_key here beyond the schema pattern.

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 (prepare) and resource (uploaded song/project for editing), which distinguishes it from generate_* tools via the explicit 'no generation' clause. However, 'ingest' vs 'prepare upload' vs 'create project' boundaries are not fully disambiguated, leaving the agent to infer scope against siblings like prepare_upload.

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 'no generation' note implicitly tells the agent this is a pre-generation step, which is useful routing context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g., 'use create_edit after this'), leaving usage partly inferred.

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