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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real semantic context with the prompts_stale meaning and how it is resolved. It stops short of describing response structure beyond the field list, but the behavioral disclosure is well beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the read purpose before the stale-prompt caveat and the edit_scene recommendation. Density is high and mostly earns its place, though the MiniMax H3 naming adds minor detail an agent may not need.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sketches the return payload well enough to act on, including the per-clip positive_prompt and start-frame indicator. Only edge behavior (missing scene, error modes) is unaddressed.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including provenance (video_id from create_video/list_videos/get_video, scene_id from get_video). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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?

Uses a specific verb (read) and scope (one scene as the renderer sees it) and enumerates the returned components: narration, visual description, reference images, per-clip MiniMax H3 positive_prompt, and the start-frame flag. An agent can distinguish this from get_video and edit_scene without consulting schemas.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the ordering: 'Read this before writing a positive_prompt with edit_scene,' and routes the stale case to regenerate_scene mode='narration'. Both when-to-use and the corrective alternative are named.

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