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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description goes well beyond them: it states that accept regenerates ONLY the listed shots, re-assembles and re-edits automatically, and that the previous version stays in Mes vidéos. That retention detail meaningfully clarifies the non-destructive annotation.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then enumerates accept/decline consequences in a compact single paragraph. The trailing 'Arguments:' JSON snippet is somewhat redundant with the schema but does give a quick call shape. Generally tight with little waste.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and heavily nested inputs, it covers the essential behavior: what accept triggers, that prior versions are preserved, and the credit-approval gate. Failure modes and the idempotency/offer_id mechanics are left to the schema, so it is strong but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does explain the path shape (id, shoot_id) and the meaning of decision plus the confirmed=true requirement. However it omits offer_id, idempotency_key, max_credits and the english directions object, which the agent must discover elsewhere. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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+resource: answering the 'fix offer' of a delivered multi-shot video, with the two possible decisions spelled out. It clearly describes what happens on each path, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like kelpo_accept_shoot, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 conditions for each branch: accept only after the user approved the offer's credits and with confirmed=true; decline leaves the video as is. That is a genuine usage prerequisite for a consequential action. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use this tool versus other offer/shoot tools, so no 5.

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