check_duplicate_idea

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the 768-dimensional semantic embedding approach, cosine similarity, the >0.78 duplicate threshold, and what is returned. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or failure modes, but the 'Check if' phrasing and algorithm details provide substantial transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It then adds valuable technical context and a clean Args section. No sentence is wasted, and the structure makes the tool's behavior immediately understandable.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the similar search_video_archive sibling, but the complexity is low enough that the provided details suffice for correct invocation.

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 must compensate. It does by providing concise meaning for both parameters: channel_id is a Channel UUID or slug, and concept_text is the proposed headline or core concept to test. This adds useful semantic information beyond the raw schema, though it could have included format or length expectations.

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 clearly states the tool's function: checking whether a video idea or concept has already been produced in a channel. It is specific about the verb, resource, and underlying comparison against the channel's past archive, distinguishing it from generic search or generation tools.

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?

The usage context is implied rather than explicit: it is for testing a concept's uniqueness before production, and the Arg description mentions 'to test for uniqueness.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the similar sibling search_video_archive, nor provides any exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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