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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — scripts are stored verbatim, auto-cut into takes, nothing is rewritten, filmed, or published, and the user consumes it later under Shoots on their phone. It does not disclose what happens on repeated calls (idempotentHint=false) or any permission requirements, so it stops short of a 5.

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 primary action, then scope, then the sibling alternative, then behavioral constraints. Four sentences is slightly more than needed — the final sentence about the teleprompter/camera experience is nice context but not essential to invoking the tool.

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 mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, alternatives, and side effects. The only gap is what the call returns (e.g. project identifier or status), which the agent must discover elsewhere.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning over the schema: 'Every script is stored word for word and cut into takes automatically' clarifies the script-vs-segments relationship, and 'nothing is rewritten' constrains how the input text is handled downstream.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Set up a whole video project at once') and immediately enumerates what that means: every script for a client or campaign, filed into folders. It explicitly contrasts with sibling 'create_video_shoot', so an agent can distinguish the two without opening 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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('when there is more than one video to make — a product launch, a client's month of content, a shot list someone sent over') and names the alternative tool for the single-video case. The schema further routes to list_shoot_folders for folder reuse. Nothing is left to inference.

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