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

The description discloses that the tool returns jobPecaId, explains its significance for subsequent updates, and lists required/optional data fields. However, it does not discuss side effects, failure modes, or permission requirements, and with readOnlyHint=false and no idempotentHint, the agent is left without information about whether repeated calls create duplicates or are safe.

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 well-organized with a clear overview, action breakdown, and bulk support note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides necessary detail without excessive verbosity. The inclusion of update details in an add-specific tool is slightly redundant but useful context, so not penalized heavily.

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 write tool with no output schema and six parameters, the description gives enough to make a basic add call, including required fields and return value. However, missing details like the serialization of 'data', handling of batch variants, and understanding of 'account' mean the definition is not fully complete for all invocation scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It covers job_id, data (including optional fields), job_piece_id, and bulk fields job_ids/job_piece_ids, but does not explain the format of 'data' (likely a JSON string) nor the purpose of 'account'. This is a partial compensation, leaving some parameters ambiguous.

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+resource: linking a catalog piece to an existing job (add) or updating an already-linked piece. It explicitly differentiates between add and update actions, and the '[Flattened action: add]' marker makes clear this tool is specifically the add variant, distinguishing it from the sibling iclips_job_pieces_write_update.

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 provides clear parameter requirements for add versus update, including which id to use in each case (pecaId vs jobPecaId). It implies when to use add (when linking a new piece) and points to the iclips_pieces tool for catalog ids, though it does not explicitly state 'use update when the piece is already linked' as a direct exclusion.

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