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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: asynchronous execution returning a projectId, the polling requirement via get_job, an explicit credit spend with a per-30s formula and a broll surcharge, and the default-off b-roll flag. This is exactly the kind of cost and lifecycle disclosure a destructive, non-idempotent tool needs.

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 tight sentences front-load the capability first, then async behavior, then cost, then prerequisite. The telegraphic parenthetical style is efficient but slightly dense; nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema and an async lifecycle, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: return contract (projectId), polling path (get_job), cost model, and prerequisite upload. Enum value meanings, the largest remaining gap, are not covered.

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 description coverage is only 25% across 12 params, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it explains sourceR2Key's origin, broll's default and cost, and that sourceDurationSeconds drives cost. However, the six enum parameters (recipe, editStyle, captionStyle, outputFormat, sfxIntensity, captionPosition) and name/notes remain unexplained, leaving notable gaps.

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 and resource ('Polish uploaded footage') and enumerates the actual output features (captions, punch-ins, b-roll, SFX), which distinguishes it from generic create_video/create_ai_story siblings. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling, but the described capability is specific enough to route on.

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 preconditions (requires an r2Key from ai_edit_upload) and the follow-up action (poll get_job), plus the credit cost of running it. It does not state when to prefer this over other video-creation siblings, so it falls short of 5.

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