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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data, and 'changes nothing' largely restates it. The one genuinely additive claim is 'Returns text only,' which tells the agent the output is instructional prose rather than structured data — useful since no output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the precondition ('read once before') first and the contents enumeration second. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 zero-parameter, text-returning guidance tool with annotations already covering safety, the description tells the agent what is inside and that nothing is mutated. A minor gap is whether the returned guidance is meant to be internalized versus surfaced to the user, though 'before helping the user' hints at internalization.

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 no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter behavior.

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 action and payload: 'the steps in order, what to ask the user, and the rules for writing a script together.' It also names the resource context (making a ClipFlux video), which cleanly separates it from sibling execution tools like draft_video or make_video.

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?

'Read this once before helping the user make a ClipFlux video' gives explicit timing and frequency (once, upfront), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs for an onboarding tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when the tool is unnecessary (e.g., returning users who already know the flow).

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