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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: zero credit cost, the 1-hour auto-approval timeout and what happens to a user's 'no', revision-change semantics that invalidate a prior yes, and per-kind side effects of approved=false (e.g., first_scene re-films scene 1 'inside the price already approved'). It even discloses the checkpoint_changed error path and the make_episode fallback.

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?

Every sentence carries real information, but the content is delivered as one dense run-on paragraph with colon-chained clauses that are hard to parse on first read. The opening line is a cost aside rather than the purpose, so the definition is not front-loaded. It is long but mostly earns its length given the tool's complexity.

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 six-parameter write tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the return shape ('show: images or video, say, next and revision'), the full call-then-follow-up workflow, timeout and rejection behavior, and an alternate path if the tool is missing. An agent could invoke and recover from this tool correctly using the description alone.

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 carry the burden, and it mostly does: kind values are defined inline (cast = pictures/outfits before filming, cover, storyboard, first_scene), revision is explained as changing when anything changes, approved=false is defined as the user's no, and note is described as 'a short direction' in the cover-rejection case. series_id and n receive no explanation, leaving one required parameter and one identifier implicit.

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 and resource: 'Record the user's answer to a checkpoint,' and enumerates the four checkpoint kinds (cast, cover, storyboard, first_scene) so the agent knows exactly what a checkpoint is. It also implicitly separates this from season-level approval by noting 'A season approved all at once stops only once.' It falls short of a 5 because the very first sentence is a cost fact ('Costs no credits') rather than the purpose, so the core statement is not front-loaded.

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?

Explicit sequencing is given: 'Show it, post say, STOP, and only after the user's yes call this with that kind and revision,' plus 'Never call it without the user's answer.' It also routes the agent afterward per kind ('after cover call make_episode', 'after storyboard and first_scene ... follow it with get_episode') and provides a fallback if the tool is unavailable. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and next steps are all covered.

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