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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the async recovery contract (stable clientRequestId, poll status until finished, never resubmit) and the cost model (free, creates no paid film). It does not explain what happens when expectedRevision no longer matches the acknowledged revision, which is the main failure mode an agent would hit.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing, with the identity/revision contract stated first and the recovery instruction last. The phrasing is dense and jargon-heavy ('acknowledged expectedRevision'), but nothing is filler.

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 five-parameter nested mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the idempotency and polling lifecycle well but leaves the job payload, targetId, and the revision-mismatch outcome undocumented, so an agent still cannot fully call it from the description alone.

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 must carry the load: it does add real meaning for clientRequestId (stable UUID, dedupe key), expectedRevision (must be the acknowledged revision), and job content (timed captions, overlays, owned Library audioTracks). projectId and targetId are never mentioned, and the nested job/clip structure receives no explanation at all.

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+resource (export a render job against expectedRevision) and implies a boundary against the paid-film path via 'it does not make a new paid film', which separates it from soclo_editor_film_status. It never names soclo_editor_prepare as the prerequisite step, so the sibling routing is only partially explicit.

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 clear operating rule: after transport loss, read soclo_editor_export_status with the original clientRequestId and do not resubmit. That is real when-to-use guidance for the failure path, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over prepare/film_status in the normal path, or what to do on a revision conflict.

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