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

Annotations declare this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: quote=true never creates a run, and the review_hash is bound to a specific recipe/preset combination, which explains the effective idempotency of the quote mode. It doesn't discuss cost implications, permissions, or failure modes, so not 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?

Four sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the required call sequence and the invalidation rule. Every sentence conveys information an agent needs to invoke correctly, with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a 6-parameter tool with nested objects, the description covers the critical quote/start flow and hash lifecycle. The main gap is the unexplained driver parameter and preset 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 must carry parameter meaning. It explains quote and review_hash well, and references inputs and presets, but leaves driver, recipe_id, and the four preset sub-fields (style/motion/framing/lighting) entirely unexplained. Partial compensation for a 6-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?

The first sentence states a specific verb pair and resource: 'Quote or start a workflow recipe.' An agent immediately understands the dual-mode nature of the tool. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like generate_with_recipe or quote_generation, which keeps it from 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 an explicit two-step sequence: call first with quote=true to review setup and price, then pass review_hash with identical inputs and presets. It also states the invalidation rule ('A changed recipe or preset requires a new quote'). It lacks any comparison to alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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