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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the montage is empty and saved, it is free, and it should be preceded by read_video_guide. It does not explain persistence details or what is returned, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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 short and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the prerequisite and follow-up step. Every sentence adds practical value, including the cost note.

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 four-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is minimally workable but leaves important gaps. It explains the workflow position and cost, but does not explain how the montage parameters affect the created montage or what the caller receives after creation.

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?

The input schema has four parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance at all. It does not explain title, fit_mode, resolution, or aspect_ratio, so an agent must infer their meaning entirely from names, enums, and defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create an empty saved montage. It also differentiates the creation step from follow-up editing by naming edit_montage, so the agent can place it correctly in the workflow.

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 sequencing guidance: read read_video_guide before planning a video, then use edit_montage to fill the montage. It names a prerequisite and a follow-up tool, though it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or how it relates to propose_montage or quote_montage.

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