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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations: the cost-avoidance property (re-stitching does not re-trigger paid generation) and the precondition that stored dialogue chunks must already exist. It does not disclose that stitching overwrites/replaces previously produced audio, which is the source of the destructiveHint=true annotation, so a small gap remains.

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 dense sentences with the status purpose front-loaded and the re-stitch cost benefit second. Em-dash parentheticals make it slightly heavier than necessary, but no sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key operational facts: polling cadence and reuse without regeneration. Missing are the meaning of the reported status values and the overwrite behavior an agent should expect on re-stitch.

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 job_id, intro_path and outro_path are already documented, including the 'instead of the show default' semantics. The description adds only the precondition on job state, not new meaning about the parameters themselves. 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 specific verbs and resources: report a job's generation status and re-stitch stored dialogue chunks with intro/outro bookends, returning the final audio path. This is clearly distinguishable from grok_generate_audio, which it explicitly references.

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 explicit usage conditions: 'Poll this after grok_generate_audio' and re-call to apply updated bookends without re-paying for generation. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling grok_render_status, which also reports render/generation status, leaving an ambiguity an agent must resolve on its own.

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