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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, it discloses non-obvious behavior: re-publishing replaces the video behind the SAME URL without changing embed code, and while latest_publish is queued/inprogress the embed_url still serves the previous version. These are exactly the traits annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the core purpose and both return fields, then a compact returns line, then tight bullets enumerating published=false, published=true, and latest_publish states. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the return shape (project_id, published, embed_url, embed_code, latest_publish) and explains the state semantics, and the annotations cover the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and the single project_id parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that project_id scopes the embed lookup but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource (retrieve a project's embeddable video player) and names the exact return fields embed_url and embed_code. It clearly distinguishes this read operation from siblings like export_project and get_export by describing what each returns.

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?

It gives explicit branching guidance: when published=false, call export_project(destination="embed") and stop; when published=true, re-publish after editing. It names the alternative tools (export_project, get_export) and the exact conditions that select them, leaving nothing to inference.

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