Explain why a creative request could not finish

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

Annotations declare it a non-destructive, idempotent write, and the description adds genuinely new constraints: the message must be short and user-friendly and must never contain tokens, paths, account details, or raw output. That sanitization requirement is behavioral context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the content constraint and the resulting user-facing consequence. No sentence is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the action, the failure semantics, and the message hygiene rules. Only the identity of the 'id' parameter and any error conditions remain unspecified.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it partially does by defining the tone and content limits of 'message'. The 'id' parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable since its purpose is obvious but limits how much value the text adds.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('mark failed') applied to a specific resource ('your in-progress request'), so the agent knows exactly what state transition occurs. It does not explicitly name a sibling like studio_submit_result for contrast, keeping it just below the top mark.

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?

Usage is implied by 'in-progress request' and the closing note that the user chooses whether to retry, which signals this is the terminal-failure path. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for the success path, so the agent must infer the routing.

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