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

Annotations already flag non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds real side-effect detail: notes are untouched and no transcription or billing occurs, and there is a caution to verify alignment before relying on synchronized playback. It does not state failure behavior when a recording already exists, 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 dense sentences with the core action and the notation-only precondition front-loaded, followed by the important no-transcription/no-charge caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or annotations beyond the useful 'once' emphasis.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, billing, and post-attach verification, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main weakness is silence on the revision/concurrency parameter and on error cases, which is a minor but real gap.

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 67%, and the description meaningfully clarifies that score_id is a notation-only target and source_score_id is the score holding the recording. The 'revision' parameter and its concurrency role are left entirely to the schema, so it does not compensate for the remaining gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it 'gives' a notation-only score the original audio/video from its source score. It also implicitly separates itself from transcription siblings ('nothing is transcribed'), so an agent can distinguish it from transcribe_attachment without opening the schema, though no sibling is named.

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?

'Once' plus the notation-only precondition implies when this applies, and 'nothing is transcribed or charged' hints that transcription tools are the alternative. However, no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. begin_audio_upload, transcribe_attachment) is given, so routing still requires inference.

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