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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the crucial economics ("THIS SPENDS CREDITS") and the refusal rule when the saved storyboard or current quote drifts. It also tells the agent to persist returned IDs and that duplicate/replay is unsafe, which the annotations cannot express.

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 credit spend warning is correctly front-loaded and nearly every clause carries operational weight. It is dense and slightly run-on, mixing identity requirements, refusal behavior, unknown-status handling, and persistence guidance in one paragraph, which reduces scanability.

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 and nested objects, the description carries the return burden and does state that "one result is one finished Soclo render, never joined agent-local clips" plus persistence expectations. It stops short of describing the shape of successful output or how to poll film progress, though it points at wallet/ledger for authority.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above it by explaining that the whole variants page (as produced by the quote tool) must be passed and that approval must carry that variant's exact projectId, revision, quoteId, expectedCredits and clientRequestId. It does not explain the optional per-variant fields (makeReady, dispatchConnected, status).

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 ("Films ONE exact owner-approved variant") plus its scoping identity (original request ID, fresh matching quote). It separates itself from siblings by name: soclo_video_make stays authoritative, soclo_video_variants_quote produces the page, soclo_video_variants_status handles unknowns.

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?

Explicit preconditions: "Only after the owner has seen and approved that quote," and the required inputs are named. It also gives the when-not path: if status is UNKNOWN, use soclo_video_variants_status and "never replay an unknown Make."

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