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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false. The description adds useful context about caller permissions and privacy of auditions, but it does not disclose important behavioral traits such as reversibility, what happens to the draft after publishing, or the output/return value. Since annotations are minimal, the description carries a larger burden and only partially meets it.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds relevant context (permissions, privacy). No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The purpose is clear, but the description lacks outcome details (e.g., what the response contains, whether publishing is reversible, how the public roster is affected). Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the result of the operation, which it does not. It also omits explicit prerequisites beyond 'approved' video, though these are implied.

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 schema already fully documents each parameter. The description's phrase 'approved seamless idle-loop video' mirrors the schema's 'approved seamless idle-loop MP4', adding no material semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action: 'Promote an operator-owned actor draft into the shared public LetMeActForYou roster and bind its approved seamless idle-loop video.' This is specific, uses a strong verb ('promote'), identifies the resource (actor draft), and differentiates from sibling tools like create_actor or delete_actor.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: publishing a draft to the public roster. It also gives an explicit authorization constraint ('Only configured public actor publishers and first-party internal services can call this tool') and a privacy nuance ('Auditions remain private'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X', so it stops short of a 5.

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