check edit dialogue availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the answer comes from the loaded API spec, no HTTP request is sent, it costs nothing, and it is identical for every organization regardless of plan, credits or project access. It also discloses the failure mode behind keyedPreview ('sending one when it is false fails'), which is exactly the kind of consequence 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?

Strongly front-loaded: return shape first, then the meaning of each boolean, then the operational caveats, then the exclusions. It is denser and longer than most definitions, but nearly every clause carries distinct information; a minor trim would still leave all three boolean semantics, the free/no-request note and the alternatives.

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 fully compensates by spelling out all three returned booleans and their conditions, plus the absence of side effects and the recommended call timing. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether and when to invoke it is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema baseline applies and no parameter meaning needs explaining. The description instead documents the response fields, which is the relevant semantics for a no-arg call.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report which Edit Dialogue features this connection supports', and immediately enumerates the exact return shape { available, keyedPreview, sourceUpload }. It also names what it is not (lipsync models, dubbing/voice options), so an agent can distinguish it from the neighbouring *_get-options siblings without opening a schema.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('Call it once before the first dialogue-previews_create to decide whether to persist an idempotencyKey') plus explicit exclusions that route to named alternatives (models_list, dubbing_get-options, speech-previews_get-options). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present, which is the top of the scale.

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