Write Hooks

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful non-obvious operational context: it consumes 2 orchyn credits and reads the real transcript when given a URL. This goes beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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 deliver purpose, input modes, cost, and when-to-use with no fluff. The information is front-loaded. Minor formatting typo ('consumes 2 orchyn credits.Use') slightly reduces polish but not clarity.

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?

Given the rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what it produces, how to invoke it, credit cost, and when to use it. It could still offer stronger differentiation from related content-creation siblings, but nothing critical is missing for a correct call.

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 schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, including optionality, count defaults, and max value. The description's 'url vs topic' framing reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('opening hooks') and defines them as 'the first line said or shown on screen.' It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_variants or find_hook_pattern, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 description ends with clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you know the subject and need openings to choose between.' It provides a practical trigger but does not include explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name alternatives.

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