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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a genuinely useful disclosure that Klipa credits are consumed. However, it does not say whether the original video is left intact, how many credits are used, or that the operation likely runs as a job that must be polled.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. 'Like on the website' is slightly informal but still conveys that billing mirrors the web product.

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 four-parameter tool with fully documented schema and existing annotations, the description covers purpose and the cost model adequately. The main omission is not stating the return/lifecycle (job id, polling via get_job/cancel_job), which siblings suggest is how these operations work.

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 explains mode, source_id, video_url, and remove_filler_words in detail. The description only restates the mode and filler-word semantics in prose, adding no format or precedence detail beyond the schema (e.g., what happens if both source_id and video_url are empty).

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: removing or speeding up silent segments of a video, with optional filler-word removal. It is concrete enough to distinguish from generic trimming tools like cut_video, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 phrase 'for a tighter edit' implies the intended outcome, and 'optionally filler words' hints at a variant behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus change_speed, cut_video, or clean_audio, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a source or upload.

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