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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the code is 'single-use' and is 'consumed', which makes the irreversible nature explicit and is consistent with the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the core action and effect are front-loaded. Every phrase adds meaning, despite the larger parameter-documentation gaps penalized elsewhere.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with three required parameters and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain access_token or animation_id, state prerequisites, or describe error/expired-code behavior, though an output schema partially mitigates return-value questions.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only clarifies that unlock_code is user-supplied and single-use; animation_id and access_token remain unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a substantial gap.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Consume'), a specific resource ('a user-supplied single-use code'), and the outcome ('unlock one clean video'), which clearly sets it apart from the sibling create/delete/get tools. It is not a tautology and conveys a distinct purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to redeem a code versus using sibling tools, nor are any preconditions or exclusions mentioned. The only implicit context is that a user supplies a code, but the description does not help an agent decide between alternatives.

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