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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important side effects: retranscribe 'charges transcription tokens again', disabling voiceprint 'purges biometric voice data', and write_notes/write_summary 'replace the entire field (not append)'. It also explains the voiceprint backfill behavior across interviews sharing voice_identity_id, which is critical operational context.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, covering all seven actions plus special conditions. It is front-loaded with the action list, though the single-paragraph format could be better organized into per-action bullets for faster scanning.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers conditional usage, token costs, data purging, field replacement semantics, and voiceprint backfill behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly across all action variants.

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 already 100%, but the description adds a valuable action-to-parameter mapping that the flat schema does not convey. It clarifies conditional requirements like retranscribe needing id+language and assign_speakers needing speaker_labels+assigned_names, and adds semantic warnings such as 'Use a real name, not "Interviewer N"'.

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 opens with a specific verb set — 'Rename, move, write summary/notes, retranscribe, assign/confirm speakers, or toggle voiceprint' — tied clearly to interviews as the resource. This operation list immediately distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like interviews_read and cards_read.

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 gives explicit per-action parameter requirements ('action=rename needs id+title', 'move needs interview_ids') and concrete trigger conditions such as 'If transcript_quality.looks_corrupted=true, offer retranscribe' and 'If need_approve_speakers=true, show quote links then assign_speakers'. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the internal usage routing is strong.

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