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

Adds real context beyond annotations: no re-render occurs, saving consumes get_editing montage_price credits unless the version was already rendered, and sharing is a separate decision. Annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile, but the cost and no-re-render behavior is valuable non-duplicated context.

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-loaded with the action and the key precondition, then cost behavior. The trailing inline Arguments blob largely repeats the input schema, which is minor waste but not damaging.

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 no annotations describing returns, the description covers trigger conditions, cost, and the sharing boundary. It omits what the call returns or what state results after finalization, a small gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and largely does: it explains confirmed as explicit user approval, version as the editing version, and job_id as the optional chosen preview. It does not clarify the id format or version semantics beyond naming them.

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: save/finalize an existing preview. The workflow role is clear and it is distinguishable from siblings like kelpo_preview_editing and kelpo_get_editing. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 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 a precondition (explicit user approval, confirmed=true) and a boundary (sharing remains a separate explicit decision). It does not name alternative sibling tools for the same workflow, so not a full 5.

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