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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the 10-15 minute runtime, that credits are spent and capped at the estimate_cost maximum, and the downstream side effect of writing per-clip H3 prompts and rendering them. Those are exactly the cost/irreversibility facts an agent needs before firing a destructive mutation.

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?

Three short sentences with the destructive action and its time cost front-loaded in capitals, then the mechanics, then the billing bound. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 paid, destructive, long-running action the description covers trigger, duration, cost ceiling and idempotent retry. With no output schema, it does not say what the call returns (job id or status payload), which is the only notable omission.

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 100%, and the schema already explains job_id's provenance and the idempotency_key's 24h reuse behavior in detail, so the description adds no parameter-level syntax. It does add the cost context ('up to the maximum estimate_cost returns'), which tells the agent the financial bound of the call.

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 ('Approve the reviewed script') plus the immediate consequence ('START RENDERING'), so the agent knows this is the gate from review to production. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like estimate_cost, get_job_status and regenerate_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?

'Approve the reviewed script' implies the precondition that a script has been generated and reviewed, and naming estimate_cost establishes where the spending ceiling comes from. It does not explicitly say when not to call it (e.g. to preview or regenerate instead), which keeps it short of a 5.

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