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

Annotations already mark it as non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that preview creates a public link, prototype publishes an app, react_build rebuilds, and video exports are async via get_job. It does not mention the confirmation-token flow, but it adds meaningful side-effect and job behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the kind list is compact and directly useful.

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, multi-action, open-world export tool with no output schema, the description covers all kind outcomes and the async video flow, which is enough to select and call the right branch. The main omission is the confirmation handshake and any expected return shape for non-video kinds, though the schema covers the former.

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% and already describes confirmed, confirmationToken, and params, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning to each kind enum value (formats, public link, publish, rebuild) and the video polling requirement, though it does not add detail for the nested params object or confirmation mechanics.

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 operation and then enumerates four export kinds with their outputs, so an agent can tell what each kind produces. It stops short of explicitly differentiating export from sibling tools such as make_video or generate_media.

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?

Provides implied usage by kind: video requires a motionId and polling get_job, preview creates a public link, prototype publishes a React app, and react_build rebuilds one. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over make_video or generate_media, nor when not to use it.

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