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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add beyond that. It does: it discloses the cost boundary (no paid scan on save) and the retry contract (reuse idempotencyKey), both operationally important facts not derivable from annotations.

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 short, front-loaded sentences covering purpose, prerequisite, cost behavior and retry contract. No filler or redundancy; each sentence adds a distinct actionable fact.

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?

A 6-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, so return format needn't be described. Cost, idempotency and prerequisite are covered; the only real gap is the meaning of brandId/label and duplicate-target behavior.

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 compensate. It explains idempotencyKey's retry semantics and effectively maps the platform parameter values, and the enum self-documents category, but brandId, label and url semantics remain undocumented beyond the tool phrasing.

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 (save) and resource (target), and enumerates the accepted platform types (YouTube, X, website, RSS) matching the platform enum. It implicitly separates itself from scan_intelligence_target by clarifying that saving does not start a scan, though it never names that sibling outright.

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?

'Check capabilities first' is explicit prerequisite guidance pointing at get_intelligence_capabilities, and 'Saving does not start a paid scan' tells the agent when NOT to expect a scan (i.e., use scan_intelligence_target for that). No explicit exclusion list, but the context is clear enough to choose correctly.

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