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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the post-creation workflow hint and says nothing about auth requirements (e.g. the label artist requirement) or what the create actually persists.

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?

Two terse sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and then the next step. Nothing is padded.

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?

With rich schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and the schema routing to get_requirements for field names, the description supplies the essential purpose and sequencing. It omits any note about what an album needs or how it relates to other entities, but nothing critical for calling it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (artist, fields, dry_run, idempotency_key) is already documented in the schema, including non-obvious ones. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create an album or EP'), which clearly separates it from create_track, update_album, and list_albums. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the entity-level distinction is obvious.

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 only guidance is the follow-up step ('Put tracks on it afterward with set_album_tracks'), which is a workflow hint rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no explicit condition for choosing create_album over alternatives or when not to use it.

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