update_pronunciation_dictionaries

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

The annotation set already declares this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds only a credit-cost warning, but fails to explain what is updated, what the dictionary locators do, or what happens to affected project text.

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 very short, but it is malformed and front-loads the incorrect verb "Create." The credit-cost phrase is useful, but the overall structure does not coherently communicate the tool's operation.

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 mutation tool that applies pronunciation dictionaries to a Studio project, the description is critically incomplete. Even with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent cannot confidently tell what the tool updates or how it differs from related pronunciation-dictionary tools.

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 input schema already documents project_id, invalidate_affected_text, and pronunciation_dictionary_locators. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline, which is appropriate for full schema coverage but not helpful.

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 says "Create Pronunciation Dictionaries," but the tool name and annotation title describe an update operation for pronunciation dictionaries. It gives a resource but uses the wrong verb, which is misleading rather than clarifying, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like patch_pronunciation_dictionary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only added context is that credits are spent, which is not usage guidance.

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