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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/closed-world safety, and the description reinforces it with 'Free, read-only.' Beyond that, it discloses genuinely new behavior: catalog-listing vs playbook-return modes, the inspect → plan → build timeline → review frames → export after a confirmed quote → deliver sequence, and which stage indicates the next file to open.

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 entry instruction is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the opening sentence is dense with parentheticals and slash-named modes that take effort to parse. Slightly busy rather than wasteful.

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 the description need not explain return shapes, and it still covers the call modes, the accepted ids, the stage sequence, and the handoff to get_workflow_file. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% (the workflow param already documents 'Omit to list the catalog'), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete accepted ids ('vidguy-edit', 'playable', 'faceless-production') and stating what each returns, which the schema's single example id does not fully convey.

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 — returns workflow instructions/playbooks for named workflows (vidguy-edit, playable, faceless-production). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_workflow_file by naming it as the downstream step that opens reference files.

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?

Explicitly front-loads the trigger with 'START HERE before editing a video with the agent editor' and extends it to the playable and faceless-production flows. It also explains the two call modes (no args = list catalog; with workflow = return playbook) and routes the agent to get_workflow_file for stage-level files.

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