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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it spends quoted credits, attaches scenes to an existing project, is safe to retry with the same planId without double-charging, and returns before rendering completes. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: prerequisite, core action, idempotency guarantee, and async follow-up. It is logically ordered from setup through execution to next steps.

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 an asynchronous mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication prerequisites, credit consumption, project attachment semantics, idempotency, and the required follow-up call. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents planId. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that planId represents a consumable plan whose quoted credits are spent, and that reusing the same planId is idempotent. It stops short of format details, which the schema covers.

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: it consumes a plan and attaches scenes to an existing overlay project. It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_design_sheet (which creates the project) and plan_overlay_pack (which produces the plan), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does versus its siblings.

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 prerequisites (approved AlertForge account), the required prior step (plan_overlay_pack), and the required follow-up (call get_pack_status afterward). It also states what the tool never does — create a new project — which prevents misuse.

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