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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantive context beyond that: no footage or logos in the output, unknowns remain adjustable, and generated code is not render-tested. That last warning is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs before acting on the result.

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?

One dense lead sentence followed by two short constraint clauses, with the core purpose front-loaded. The target list is long but each item is load-bearing since the enum is otherwise undocumented.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and the framework list plus input-path framing is helpful for a deeply nested schema. However, with six parameters, nested objects, and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves too much of the input contract unexplained for a tool this complex.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does: it maps the 'target' enum values by naming the six frameworks and gestures at 'recipe' vs 'texts'. scene_id, aspect, and duration_ms get no mention, leaving half the surface undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Generate editable starter source') and enumerates the exact output flavors (Remotion TSX, HyperFrames HTML, CSS, GSAP, lottie-web JSON, After Effects JSX), which no sibling tool does. It doesn't name a sibling to contrast with, so it stops just 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?

The phrase 'from an adapted recipe, or a reference plus mandatory replacement text' implies the two valid input paths and suggests adapt_scene/reference_brief come first, but it never states that explicitly or names alternatives. 'No source footage/logos' is a useful scope exclusion, though it describes output content rather than when to call the tool.

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