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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully clarifies that the library item is used as a source rather than consumed, but does not address idempotentHint=false — i.e. that repeat calls create additional assets — nor whether the source is duplicated or referenced.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the source-of-input requirement and the returned value are both front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema, annotations and a clear input provenance, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it. The only omission is the non-idempotent consequence of repeated calls, which an agent would want to know before retrying.

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?

With a single parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description does the compensating work: it identifies jobId as a job id obtained from list_library and constrains it to finished videos. Format details (uuid) remain only in the schema, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: takes a finished library video (via a job id) and makes it the source of a new edit, returning an asset id. It clearly distinguishes itself from list_library by naming it as the id source, though it does not explicitly contrast with create_upload or start_edit.

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 mention of '(a job id from list_library)' implies the prerequisite step of listing the library first, and 'finished' implies the job must be complete. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over create_upload (uploading new media) or how it pairs with start_edit/quote_edit.

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