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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost ('a few credits'), latency ('a minute or two'), the condition that triggers a re-render (title shown in video), and partial-update semantics ('Only the fields given change'). It does not say whether a re-cut is reversible or whether the clip URL/ID changes after re-render, which is the main remaining behavioral gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the editable surface and followed by cost/latency and the partial-update guarantee. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, latency, trigger conditions, and partial-update behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. It could add what the call returns (updated clip object vs. job handle) to be fully self-sufficient.

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 67%, and the description compensates by attaching per-field consequences that the schema lacks: description and hashtags are free, title is free unless rendered in video, and start/end are constrained to get_clip's reported range. It adds real meaning beyond the property descriptions rather than restating them.

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 specific verb ('Changes') plus resource ('a clip') and enumerates exactly which attributes are editable: description, hashtags, title, and start/end re-cut. It also anchors the re-cut case to get_clip, so an agent can distinguish this edit tool from the read tools in the sibling list.

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 clear usage context: re-cuts must stay 'within the range get_clip reports,' which implies calling get_clip first, and it flags the cost-bearing path (title re-render, re-cut). It does not state explicit exclusions or name alternative tools for other kinds of clip changes, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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