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

Annotations already declare write, destructive, non-idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety basics. It adds useful context beyond annotations: "priced", DRAFT state, required storage/AI accounts, specific error codes, and returned character_id/character_uuid.

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 essential requirement is front-loaded, but the description becomes a dense semicolon-separated run-on. It repeats the AI account and storage account requirements in multiple places, which weakens conciseness even though most content is useful.

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 complex, priced create operation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers required inputs, nested character fields, error outcomes, returned IDs, and the next workflow step. It leaves some lifecycle context unexplained, such as what DRAFT means operationally and how publishing works.

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 carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It defines character_name as a full name, character_description's 2000-character limit and mapping to character_prompt, required storage and AI account fields inside character, enum values, and the many optional character fields.

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 and resource: "Create a character (DRAFT)". The DRAFT qualifier and the explicit next step distinguish it from downstream asset generation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as edit_character or create_character_image.

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 clear context for when to use it: create a character draft, then call queue_character_assets with stage MAIN. It also says to see character_options for storage path details. However, it does not name exclusions or alternatives such as edit_character for updating an existing character.

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