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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: pass/fail semantics, that empty screens count as errors, that it returns errors with fixes, and what the success return differs by project type. This is well beyond what the structured fields disclose.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then timing, then outcome routing in short clauses with no filler. Length is justified by the multi-branch next-step guidance, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing both failure returns (error list with fixes) and success returns per project type (editor link, render page, export_image follow-up). For a one-parameter read-only check tool, nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100% for the single project_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully (including its source: create_project or list_projects). The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Runs the strict final check') plus its scope ('before you hand the work to the user') and explicitly distinguishes itself from review_scene. An agent can tell it apart from review_scene and render_preview without opening schemas.

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 explicit timing ('once at the end, after review_scene and render_preview look right') and names the alternative for the other phase ('while building use review_scene'). It also routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool per project type (export_image vs editor link vs render page).

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