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

The description indicates a creation operation, consistent with the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It does not add behavioral details beyond the basic 'create' action, such as side effects, error handling, or idempotency implications, though the annotations cover the read/write and destructive hints.

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 very brief and focused: 'Create paragraph. Guidance: Create one paragraph under a CMS sound item.' It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse, though the formatting with '| context: id, type' is slightly odd but not confusing.

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?

Given the straightforward creation operation and well-detailed schema, the description is sufficient. It does not mention return values (no output schema exists), and the absence of nested objects simplifies context. However, it could slightly benefit from a note on which parameters are required versus optional, but the schema already handles that.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description itself adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so it does not improve upon the baseline.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('paragraph under a CMS sound item'). It distinguishes this tool from similar paragraph-creation tools for other content types (articles, events, maps, videos) by specifying 'sound item'.

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 implies usage when a paragraph needs to be created for a sound item, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cms_create_article_paragraph or cms_create_video_paragraph. The resource type is clear, but no direct alternative guidance is provided.

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