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

Goes well beyond the annotations: workspace-wide blast radius, the instruction to inform the user on change, the compile-at-generation-time behavior requiring regeneration, the 'entry_exists' refusal with a `current` field and a confirmation-gated replace flow, and role/plan prerequisites with a refusal that names the cause. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true (remove deletes entries) and readOnlyHint=false, with no contradiction.

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 purpose and the critical do-not-respell warning, then a tightly organized per-action bullet list. Dense but every sentence carries actionable information; nothing is restated from the schema verbatim.

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 9-parameter, multi-action tool with no output schema, the description still specifies return shapes for list and the error payload for set, plus prerequisites and side effects. An agent has everything needed to select the action, pick spelling vs ipa, and handle refusals.

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 coverage is 89%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: spelling works on every voice and is preferred, ipa is English ElevenLabs voices only and ignored on clips with [audio tags], language "" means all in list mode, and replace: true is only valid after user confirmation. It also documents result shapes per action.

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 pair and resource ('Read and edit the workspace pronunciation dictionary'), names the settings location, and enumerates the four actions with their return shapes. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like set_voice or voiceover_batch.

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 an explicit trigger ('whenever the user asks how a word, name or acronym is said') and an explicit anti-pattern with the reason ('Do NOT respell the word in the voiceover script'). It also names the required follow-up action (regenerate via voiceover_batch generate_speech) and the alternative route for setting entries.

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