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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world write, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: it consumes the monthly shorts quota, the quota equals moment_ids.length when specified, and it returns a job_id for async polling rather than finished shorts.

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?

Five dense sentences, all front-loaded: identity and prerequisites first, the moment_ids/count branch next, optional knobs, then the return-and-poll instruction. 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?

Given 15 parameters, a nested style object, and no output schema, the description covers the high-risk gaps: quota cost, async job_id, and polling target. It omits edge behavior (what happens if the video isn't finished importing, error semantics) but is sufficient for a correct first call.

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 the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining the precedence rule between moment_ids and count (and the resulting quota calculation) in one place. Defaults like count=5 and theme=18 are already in the schema, so the added semantics are real but incremental.

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?

Specific verb (queue clipping) plus resource (an already-imported video_id), and it names where the id comes from (list_videos / get_import_status). It also implicitly separates itself from get_clip_status by casting itself as the enqueue step, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings 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?

It gives clear operating rules: use moment_ids to clip specific moments in order, otherwise count random moments, and poll get_clip_status afterward. It doesn't state when to prefer a sibling like create_music_video, but the context for calling this tool is unambiguous.

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