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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-destructive, non-open-world, non-read-only), and the description adds two things beyond that: the call persists an evidence receipt as a side effect, and the returned frames do not certify continuous coverage. That coverage caveat is genuinely non-obvious and prevents an agent from over-claiming completeness of a visual inspection.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by a distinct caveat that earns its own sentence. Nothing is wasted, though the whole description is thin for a tool with a six-field nested body and a persistence side effect.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe what comes back, and it does not: no indication whether the result is frame data, a receipt identifier, or both, and no pointer to how the saved receipt is later retrieved (e.g. editorial_list_evidence). For a tool that writes state and has a nested object parameter, this leaves the agent guessing on the return and follow-up path.

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 coverage is 67% and the description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the word 'bounded', which loosely maps to the two-frame cap enforced structurally. The nested body object (mediaId, representationIdentity/Revision, timebaseNum/Den) carries only structural constraints with an example, and runId is documented as 'runId (path).' only, so the hardest parameters are left to the token names.

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 specific verbs and resources: it samples motion frames over a bounded range and persists an evidence receipt. That is materially more informative than the title alone. However, it does not distinguish this from nearby frame-inspection siblings such as preview_frame, compare_frames, or editorial_inspect_source, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to reach for.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. The second sentence is a scope caveat about the accuracy of the output, not a usage condition. An agent must infer entirely from the name when this is the right call versus compare_frames or preview_frame.

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