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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scoping caveat ('What the hit did, never why it spread, and not a forecast of views') that tells the agent what this data is not, which is genuine added context. It does not add anything about freshness, cost, or failure modes beyond that.

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?

The description is one enormous run-on paragraph that enumerates the recipe's internal keys (canvas, length_ms, slots, anchors, free, cuts, beats, captions, hook, keep, vary, sound, limits, withheld, apply) in prose. It is not front-loaded and much of the content duplicates what the output schema already carries, so it is over-specified rather than concise.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values, yet it spends most of its length doing exactly that. The core facts an agent needs — that it is a safe read returning a format's edit plan, and where to send the result — are present, so it is complete, but the completeness is achieved through over-explanation rather than targeted detail.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description enriches format_id by naming the sibling tools it comes from, but it never mentions family_id at all, so it adds meaning for only one of the two parameters.

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?

The description does identify the resource — a format's compiled edit plan handed to a creator's editing agent — but the verb is never cleanly stated; it opens with an abstract fragment ('A format's edit for an agent's editor: slots, cuts on the beat...') rather than 'returns the compiled edit recipe for a format.' An agent can eventually infer it is a read that returns a recipe, but the purpose is buried under dense jargon rather than front-loaded.

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 routes the agent well on the downstream path: send the edit to `check` or call shorti_check_link with `format`, and it names the sibling sources for format_id (shorti_what_to_shoot, shorti_find, shorti_format). However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus shorti_format or shorti_what_to_shoot, so the selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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