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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it clarifies that the tool does not delegate to Valmera's agent, and explains the returned child_project_id must be copied into editor tools for equivalent capabilities. It also discloses the parameter trust nuance (child_project_id never trusts the active-project pointer). No contradiction with annotations.

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 somewhat long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Open one generated short for DIRECT editing'), then selection options, then a crucial non-delegation clarification, then usage guidance, then parameter nuance. The structure is logical, though it could be tightened slightly without losing information.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains how to select a short (by card or child_project_id), what to do with the returned ID, when to use it, and the parameter dependencies. It doesn't describe return format details (though the description implies the child_project_id is returned) or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, these are minor gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining the semantic relationship between parameters: card requires parent_project_id, and child_project_id resolves its own parent without trusting the active-project pointer. It also clarifies that card is 1-based from shorts_status, which is not in the schema. This adds meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb+resource: 'Open one generated short for DIRECT editing by this MCP caller.' It specifies the exact scope (generated short) and the mechanism (returning a child project ID to use in editor tools). It also distinguishes itself from delegation by explicitly saying 'This does NOT call or delegate to Valmera's agent,' and implies it is distinct from open_project by focusing on shorts specifically.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use this, then watch_video and the normal editing tools, when the user says YOU should edit a short.' It also clarifies when not to expect delegation and explains the parameter selection logic (card requires parent_project_id; child_project_id resolves its own parent). This is clear, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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