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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true; the description usefully reinforces idempotency ('repeating the same values changes nothing') and discloses partial-update semantics ('fields left out keep their values'), plus the return shape. However, given destructiveHint=true it never explains what is destructive about the change (e.g. effect on existing synthesized narration), leaving the safety-relevant behavior unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then update semantics, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, there is no need to enumerate return fields, and the description covers trigger, partial-update behavior, and exclusions adequately for a simple 3-parameter mutation. The remaining gap is the unexplained destructive behavior flagged by annotations.

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 100% and all three parameters (tutorialId, name, defaultVoice) are documented with constraints in the schema itself. The description only alludes to name and voice at a high level, adding no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the structured fields, so 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 a specific verb and resource (rename a tutorial / change its default narration voice) and scopes the tool against adjacent operations with 'Not for editing narration text.' An agent can distinguish it from update_video, update_speech, and update_project without opening any schema.

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?

'Use this when someone wants to rename a tutorial or change the default voice' gives a clear triggering condition, and the closing exclusion tells the agent when not to use it. It stops short of naming the correct alternative for narration-text edits, so it is not fully explicit routing.

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