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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and requires business permission checks and tier restrictions. Annotations provide no contradiction, and the description adds valuable context about access control and prerequisites.

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?

The description is concise at 4 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words; it efficiently communicates both the action and the required preconditions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 required params, permission constraints, no output schema), the description covers most context: usage pattern, access caveats, and prerequisites. However, it lacks parameter explanations, which is a minor gap for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. However, it only vaguely mentions 'asset' and 'subtitle' without explaining assetId, communityId, or the subtitleEnabled parameter. It does not specify how to obtain assetId or communityId. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meaning and source.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Enable or disable subtitles on a Magic Content asset.' It specifies the resource (Magic Content asset) and the action (toggle subtitles), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_magic_content or generate_magic_content.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: before offering the action, check business permissions; FREE businesses cannot use this tool; call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs; show grace-period warning and resubscribe link; never proceed when access is blocked. This clearly differentiates usage from alternatives.

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