dubbing_check_setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds useful detail beyond them: it creates no job, the API key value is masked in output, and it reports environment facts like where projects are saved. Reachability checks of remote engines and local binaries are consistent with openWorldHint, so nothing is contradicted; only expected failure modes are not described.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus two short clauses; the purpose, the enumerated checks, the side-effect guarantee, and the call ordering all appear with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 parameterless read-only preflight with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what is verified, that nothing is mutated or created, and that it should run first. Only the shape of failure reporting is left implicit, which the output schema presumably covers.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and the description needs no parameter detail. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool.

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 concrete verb ('Check') and enumerates exactly what is verified: API key presence, voice engine reachability, voice models and limits, ffmpeg, yt-dlp, and project storage location. This clearly separates it from job-creating siblings like dubbing_start_project or dubbing_render, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Call first' gives explicit sequencing guidance and 'read-only; creates no job' clarifies it is a preflight rather than a step in the pipeline. It does not state when to skip it (e.g., after a previously successful check) or name any alternative tool.

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