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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses what gets removed ('Everything else is removed'), what stays aligned ('parallel quality metadata stays aligned'), side effects on drafts ('today's pending drafts are re-seeded'), and a key guardrail ('Refuses to empty the pool'). This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose and rationale, what to pass, side effects, and the guardrail. The information is front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence and no filler or repetition of schema text.

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 destructive tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description fully covers inputs, effects, constraints, and safety behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or anticipate consequences 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that mixing URL and scraped:N id formats is fine and specifying exactly where each comes from (get_tenant and list_assets). This helps the agent construct the 'keep' parameter correctly beyond the raw schema text.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Trim the scraped Instagram photo pool to the entries worth generating from.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_asset by focusing on curation of the pool rather than deleting individual assets, and explains the rationale ('off-brand photos in the pool produce weird stories').

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when the scraped pool contains off-brand photos and needs to be narrowed to generation-worthy entries. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_asset or state when not to use this tool, but the selection criterion 'worth generating from' is enough to guide an agent.

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