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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it bills under the same plan as the site, it quotes remaining first when quoteId is omitted, it generates an idempotencyKey when omitted, and it explicitly says not to wait for the full render. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and async behavior.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and scope. The following sentences cover billing, prerequisites, optional parameters, and async behavior without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (async submit-and-poll, optional quote, idempotency), the description covers the key operational details: prerequisite, billing, quote behavior, idempotency, and polling. The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be described. The sibling list shows related tools, and the description clearly differentiates this from quote_character_film and generate_character_film.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between quoteId and the tool's quoting behavior, and by clarifying that idempotencyKey is generated when omitted. It also ties projectId to the prerequisite that the opening must be completed. This is meaningful added value beyond the schema.

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 ('Continue') and resource ('Character Film'), and clarifies the exact scope: 'film the remaining blocks after the opening is completed.' This distinguishes it from related tools like generate_character_film and quote_character_film. The title is null, but the description itself is unambiguous.

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 description explicitly states when to use it: after the opening is completed, and it names the prerequisite ('Requires a completed opening'). It also explains the optional quoteId behavior and directs the agent to poll get_character_film. It even gives a workflow instruction: 'Submit and poll — do not wait here for the full render.' This is strong usage guidance.

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