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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive, idempotent, non-read-only), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: automatic certainty-bounded repairs with each repair reported, all-or-nothing semantics ('a write that still does not compile writes nothing'), and the branchId null behavior of writing a version without switching the editor.

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 purpose, atomicity guarantee and branch semantics are front-loaded in the first half. The long skill-enumeration sentence is dense but each mapping is actionable; it is closer to necessary operational detail than padding, though it inflates overall length.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still discloses return behavior ('names each repair in its report') and the failure case (writes nothing). Prerequisite skill loading, document format and asset binding are all covered, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

branchId is already documented in the schema, but the description adds the operational consequence (writes that version without switching the editor) and clarifies the document parameter beyond its bare 'string' type by specifying main.film XML and asset-binding syntax. projectId semantics are largely restated from the schema.

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 ('Replace the complete main.film XML document'), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling patch_film by the word 'complete'. It stops short of explicitly naming patch_film as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 conditional guidance: read the document first, load skills before the first write that uses a feature, and 'a patch that only changes values the film already has ... needs no skill' implicitly routes small edits to patch_film. It never names the alternative tool outright, so the routing is inferable rather than explicit.

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