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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the lower bar applies. The description still adds real value by naming the repair categories (template names, aspect words, Dropbox links, option values, dates) and disclosing that it returns both errors and warnings, which tells the agent the call is self-healing rather than a pure pass/fail gate.

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 sentences, no filler, with the precondition ("before building a link") front-loaded and the repair/error behavior following immediately. Every clause carries 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 12-parameter, nested-object tool with an output schema and strong annotation coverage, the description covers the essential framing: it validates and repairs rather than builds. The only gap is that it never notes the tool can assemble a plan from loose inputs (brief, style, media, steps), which an agent only learns from the schema.

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 83% and the description mentions no individual parameters, so per the baseline this lands at 3. The schema already carries the heavy lifting (enum meanings, step shapes, CORS notes), and the description adds nothing beyond acknowledging the recipe/plan inputs.

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?

"Check a recipe (or a bare edit plan) before building a link" gives a specific verb (check/repair), a specific resource (recipe or edit plan), and explicitly positions it as the pre-flight step ahead of build_video_link, so an agent can separate it from the sibling that actually produces a link.

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 supplies a clear when-to-use rule: run it before building a link, accepting either a full recipe or a bare plan. It does not state when-not to use it or what to do if validation returns errors, but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous.

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