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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and delivers remarkably rich disclosure: credit cost (1 vs 5 with hybrid_chapters), paid-plan restriction, scope prerequisites, rate limits (2 running, 10 per hour), and source_type constraints (video_url accepts public links; other types require pre-uploaded media, external URLs rejected).

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?

Five sentences, each carrying exactly one distinct operational fact, with the core purpose and async flow front-loaded ahead of cost, scope, and rate-limit details. Zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 12-parameter async mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the entire risk surface: purpose, return mechanism (job_id → poll), cost, authorization scope, rate limits, and input restrictions. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates for the two required parameters and the cost-critical video_mode by explaining the video_url vs media-storage distinction and the 5-credit cost of hybrid_chapters. Remaining parameters (style_preset, content_depth, brand_intensity) gain no additional meaning, but the high-risk ones are covered.

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 ('Generate a full course with AI') and immediately names the async counterpart (hivelearn_get_ai_job) that receives the returned job_id. This clearly distinguishes it from direct-creation siblings like hivelearn_create_course.

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?

Provides explicit operational guidance: confirm with the user before callingaving, and warns that the generate:ai_courses scope is required while admin:* does NOT include it. It doesn't explicitly name a non-AI alternative, but the job_id polling pattern plus the sibling set makes the usage context clear.

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