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

With all annotations being false, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: it generates a link, batch scripts form an in-app shoot queue in order, desktop displays a QR code, and iPhone opens a one-tap link. It does not mention link expiration or authentication requirements, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 concise and well-structured, with each sentence adding essential information: the core purpose, the text vs. scripts modes, the batch queue ordering, the finalization prerequisite, and the return format. No sentences are wasted, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 the tool has no output schema and no annotation hints, the description competently explains the return value (link/QR code) and covers both single and batch scenarios, including ordering, platform safe-zones, and device behavior. It also implies that at least one of `text` or `scripts` must be provided, satisfying the core usage context.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between `text` and `scripts`, the 100-item/400k-character limits, and that `wpm`/`platform` defaults apply to items that don't set their own. This goes beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 clearly specifies the tool's function: 'Turn one or more finished video scripts into a single one-tap link that opens the user's Daily Studio app with the script(s) loaded into the teleprompter and the right platform safe-zones selected.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from the sibling tool 'list_connected_accounts' which handles account listing.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'For one script use `text`; for a batch ... use `scripts`' and explains the batch use case ('a day's 3-4 videos, or a whole content plan — up to 100'). It also states a clear prerequisite: 'Call this only once the scripts are final.' This gives the agent clear when-to-use and how-to-choose information.

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