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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds the important side effect that the video is moved off its current product and explains the resulting visibility grouping, though it does not discuss error conditions or response 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The key operation and side effect are stated immediately.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with complete schema descriptions and rich annotations, the description supplies the essential behavioral context: existing video reassignment and visibility inheritance. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe the tool's result or failure modes.

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 both parameters are documented directly in the schema with source hints (create_video/list_videos/get_video and list_catalog). The description does not add parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: put an existing video under a product. It also clarifies the key scope, that this moves the video off its current product rather than creating or adding a new video, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_video or add_scene.

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?

Usage is clear from 'put an existing video under a product' and 'moving it off its current one,' which tells an agent this is for reassignment of existing videos. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives such as create_video, but the context is strong enough.

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