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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that prior wording is retained on each change (versioning), that shop workers can edit (permission model), and that summaries are never customer-visible (audience). It does not cover idempotency, what happens on conflicting concurrent edits, or failure modes beyond what the schema's unable_to_analyze covers.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage triggers, then behavioral notes. Every sentence carries distinct information — none restates the tool name or the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the workflow context (needs_summary backlog, human edits, version preservation, visibility). Minor gap: it does not mention that a summary may instead be skipped via unable_to_analyze, though the schema documents that path thoroughly.

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 67% and the nested summary object is documented in detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the general 'write or correct' framing, and does not mention edited_by_person or media_id at all.

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 precise verb+resource pair ('Write or correct what a photo or video shows') and names the object being written (the media summary). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as media_saveMarkup, media_tag, and media_getMarkup, which operate on different artifacts of the same media.

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 three concrete trigger conditions: fixing an existing summary, filling one marked needs_summary (explicitly noting older photos and browser captures have none), and after a person edits the words. It routes the agent from the needs_summary workflow without naming media_needsSummary by name, and gives no explicit exclusion cases.

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