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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only write. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by calling it an 'external write' and by requiring prior authorization. No contradiction with any annotation is present.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The critical usage path ('FAST PATH after read_song') is front-loaded, followed by the parameter requirements and the authorization warning.

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?

The description covers purpose, required parameters, and authorization, but it does not discuss optional parameters, returns/output behavior, or how this relates to sibling submit_voice. Since there is no output schema, those omissions leave some uncertainty for an agent deciding whether this is the right path.

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 compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for quoted_line ('exact lyric quote') and interpretation ('specific interpretation'), and it names song. However, it omits any guidance about the optional model and reply_to parameters, leaving part of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 action ('publish one exact lyric quote and a specific interpretation') and identifies the resource as a Campfire Voice. It is clearly scoped and front-loaded, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like submit_voice, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives a clear trigger context ('FAST PATH after read_song') and a concrete precondition ('use it only when already authorized'). It does not explicitly contrast with submit_voice or validate_voice, but the provided guidance is sufficient for basic selection.

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