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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent); the description goes well beyond by disclosing no generation cost, always-available synthesis, no image/video generation, project-scoped return of project identity, silent-by-default with optional library SFX selection logic, and that captions never land on it. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs that annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the project-scoped constraint and the core action, and nearly every clause carries real information (enum meanings, defaults, cost, timing). It is long for a single paragraph and some clauses could tighten, but little is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description notes the return carries the project identity, and it fully covers timing semantics, defaults, cost, and caption behavior for a non-destructive insertion tool. An agent has everything required to call 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?

With schema coverage at 17%, the description carries the burden and does: it defines all three style enum values, intensity's 0-1 range and 0.7 default, the SHORT duration guidance, at_output_s as PROGRAM seconds with downstream shift behavior, sound's default and its glitch_1/glitch_2 selection rule, and reiterates project_id's scoping immutability. This is richer than the schema itself.

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 ("Cut to a full-frame CORRUPT / glitch screen for a beat") and distinguishes it from lookalikes by naming the analogue ("Synthesized locally like the colour cards") and by clarifying it is a transition BETWEEN sections rather than a section replacement. An agent can separate it from add_color_screen, add_strobe, or add_screen_takeover without opening a schema.

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 concrete when-to-use context ("a datamosh-style transition BETWEEN sections (e.g. podcast -> CORRUPT -> the next scene)") and practical constraints ("Keep it SHORT (0.3-1s reads as a hit)", sound optional). It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to or away from a named sibling tool, so it stops short of full alternative-selection guidance.

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