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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that. It adds behavioral context by explaining the nature of the content ('persistent notes... style, characters, do/donts') and that it is read-only. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it does not discuss errors or edge cases.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the optional parameter guidance is appended directly. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage and parameter semantics adequately. It does not mention return format, but that is not required given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema. Edge cases (e.g., missing context) are not discussed, but they are not essential for calling the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameters. It explains that project_id identifies the project and video_id is optional for a specific video's context. This adds meaning beyond the bare type/name in the schema, though it does not provide format or example values.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('creative context/brief for a project and optionally a specific video'), and clarifies the purpose ('persistent notes that steer the editor agent'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like video_editor_set_context by emphasizing the read operation and what content is retrieved.

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 tells when to include video_id ('Pass video_id for that video's context too') and implies the primary use case is retrieving the creative brief. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., video_editor_set_context for updates) or when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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