List intros and outros

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape and the behavioral detail that removed items remain restorable for 30 days. This is more than restating the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then return shape, then actionable usage note; no filler sentences. The embedded return-shape listing is dense but justified since there is no output schema to carry it.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned asset fields and the removal/restore window, which an agent needs to act on the result. It is nearly complete; only the sibling-alternative routing is absent.

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 there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends instead on return-value structure rather than fabricating parameter detail.

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?

Name, title, and the opening phrase 'Your intro/outro library' make clear this lists the bumper (intro/outro) assets. The resource is specific and it is distinguishable from sibling setters, though the listing verb itself is only implied rather than stated outright.

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?

It tells the agent what the returned ids feed into: set_project_bumpers, set_clip_bumpers, or set_default_bumper, which contextualizes when to call it. It does not name a competing tool (e.g. bumper_usage) or state exclusions, so it falls short of the explicit alternative routing seen in the top-tier example.

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