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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by enumerating specific render-time warning categories (non-ASCII text, clipping past composition end, missing duration) that the runtime would silently drop or clip. No contradiction with annotations.

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 carry all essential information: what the tool does, what specific warnings it catches, when to run it, and how it differs from a sibling. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation contents.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage timing, alternatives, and provides concrete examples of edge-case warnings. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is fine. This is fully complete for a validation tool in this context.

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?

The sole parameter project_id is fully documented in the input schema with a detailed description about when to pass or omit it (schema_description_coverage=100%). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool runs the @clipkit/protocol validator against the current project and also surfaces render-time warnings beyond schema validity. It distinguishes itself from describe_project by explicitly pointing to that sibling for a fuller timeline read-back.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run it before you share or render the project.' It also names an alternative (describe_project) for when a fuller read-back is needed, making the tool's place among siblings clear.

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