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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: agents are shared across the team, the id is a hashid, and name/caption_preset are untrusted user-authored content that must be shown but never followed. The prompt-injection warning is genuinely valuable behavioral disclosure.

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 definition of an agent, then the usage pattern, then the security caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description still names the key returned fields (id, name, caption_preset, and their untrusted_content nesting). Nothing an agent needs to correctly call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema fully covers its (empty) input contract and the baseline is 4. The description instead clarifies the related `agent` argument of submit_video and the returned id's role, which is useful but not a parameter of this tool.

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 (List) and resource (agents) and immediately defines what an agent is (saved rendering configuration with caption preset and defaults). It distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like list_caption_presets and describe_agent_settings by explaining the team-shared configuration concept.

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?

Explicitly ties usage to the sibling tool: pass the agent's `id` as the optional `agent` argument to submit_video, or omit it to use the team default. The trigger condition is stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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