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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: original file retained privately, validated MP3 prepared, only the selected part converted, title/description/order/author/URLs/other parts/publication flags preserved, and 'Never publishes.' It also discloses idempotency semantics for request_id (identical retry reuses arguments and ID; changed arguments conflict).

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the scope constraint before inputs and return shape. Every sentence adds distinct information, though the semicolon-heavy run-ons pack several concepts into single sentences.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers access rules, prerequisites, input format, side effects, return contents (fresh revision, part_id, media with web URL, MIME, duration), and idempotency. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains filename and base64_data (accepted formats OGG/Opus, MP3, WAV, M4A, AAC, FLAC; max 100MiB/10min) and the uniqueness/idempotency contract for request_id. It leaves token, article_id, part_id and revision largely to inference, though it points at online_article_get for revision/part_id.

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States a specific verb and resource: 'Set audio on a selected TEXT/AUDIO part of an own inactive unpublished draft.' It also scopes the operation (own, inactive, unpublished) which clearly separates it from online_article_update, online_article_publish and online_media_prepare.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Read online_article_get for current revision and part_id') and states the access restriction (staff and foreign correction grants denied). It names a sibling for input sourcing but stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when...' exclusion for the sibling tools.

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