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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive); the description adds the real behavioral payload: a link opens teleprompter+camera on phone, QR code on desktop, per-take filming, 1-3 min auto-render, output lands on the same page, and critically that this chat cannot be notified on completion.

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-loads what the tool does and keeps every clause functional (mode selection, device behavior, render timing, the notification caveat). It is a dense single paragraph, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation detail, the description carries the full burden and does: it explains what is returned (a page/QR link), what happens after filming (auto-render), where the result appears, and the async notification gap. Nothing an agent needs to set expectations with the user is missing.

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%, so 3 is the floor, but the description goes further by explaining that `script` is filmed verbatim and only cut into takes, that `topic` triggers oriiion writing, and that sourceShootId re-records the original take order. folderPath, productIds and targetSeconds are left entirely to the schema.

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 concrete verb+resource transformation ('Turn a script into a talking-head video the user films on their phone') and names the two input modes. An agent can distinguish it from render_video_shoot, process_video, and create_shoot_project without opening any schema.

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 routes between `script` (user's exact words, nothing rewritten) and `topic` (oriiion writes it), and tells the agent to call get_video_shoot_status when the user returns. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over adjacent siblings like create_shoot_project or render_video_shoot.

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