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

With annotations only saying non-read-only, non-destructive and non-idempotent, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it returns a priced offer and nothing is charged until kelpo_answer_offer accept with confirmed=true. It does not disclose the consequential side effect described in the schema (the old take is overwritten and deleted together with the montage built on it), which an agent would want surfaced at this level.

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 core sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the trailing 'Arguments: {...}' block duplicates the input schema verbatim and adds length without information. The embedded French example is a helpful trigger phrase and the rest is tight.

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 nested-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing pieces: what is returned (a scoped offer plus price) and the payment gate. Gaps remain around the overwrite/deletion of existing takes and montage, and how the two path identifiers are obtained, which are only partially covered in the schema.

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 schema already carries rich descriptions for both leaf fields (shots is 1-based, defect explains the free-vs-charged semantics in depth), so the structured data does the heavy lifting. The description merely echoes the request shape as a raw JSON snippet, adding no meaning about the path ids (id vs shoot_id) or how defect changes pricing.

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 concrete verb and resource ('redo some shots of a delivered multi-shot video'), anchors it to a user utterance, and discloses what it produces (a fix offer scoped to those shots with its price). It also positions itself in the flow by naming kelpo_answer_offer as the accept step, so an agent can tell it apart from the acceptance sibling.

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 trigger condition is explicit ('The user asks to redo some shots'), and the payment gate tells the agent this is a quoting step, not a commit. No explicit when-not or list of alternative tools (e.g. kelpo_view_take for inspecting takes, kelpo_report_issue for defects), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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