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

Annotations only declare the generic write/non-destructive profile; the description adds materially more: it requires the `write` scope, writes to flayr data, costs nothing ('free'), and consumes the existing per-minute cap (a rate-limit constraint the agent must plan around). The explicit negative scope ('does not approve, book or override') prevents over-reading the tool's authority.

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 scope tag and cost/rate caveat, then the follow-up action, then the exclusions, then the endpoint mapping. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, cost, rate limiting, scope requirement, and where to read the result. The remaining gap is the return value (whether a job/run identifier comes back and how long a run typically takes), though pointing at media_qa_get mitigates this.

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 coverage is 0% for the single `id` parameter, so the schema alone gives no meaning. The endpoint notation '/api/v2/content/{id}/qa/rerun' implies the id is a content identifier, which partially compensates, but the description never states that directly or says what kind of media/content is eligible.

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 ('Queues a free media QA run'), names the underlying endpoint (POST /api/v2/content/{id}/qa/rerun), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling reader by telling the agent to poll media_qa_get. An agent can select it without opening the 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 the follow-up path ('Poll media_qa_get') and rules out adjacent behaviors ('Does not approve, book or override'), which is clear routing guidance. It stops short of stating the precondition for a rerun (e.g. when an existing QA result warrants re-running versus first run), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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