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

Annotations only declare this is a non-destructive, closed-world write, so the description carries useful extra weight: it discloses the two-phase upload protocol, per-file limits (200 MB, 20 per call), accepted formats, and failure semantics (never blocks the hand-over). It also notes the operation is free, which is behavioral context not present in any structured field.

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 purpose leads, then the workflow, then the safety net and cost note, so it is front-loaded and nothing is truly redundant. The middle sentence is dense and packed with parenthetical limits, which makes it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the flow, limits, accepted file types, and failure behavior, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It is slightly thin on what the second `confirm` call returns and what happens on repeated saves, but no critical gap remains.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot show on its own: `files` returns an upload link per file and `confirm` must be fed the ids from that first response, making the two calls' relationship explicit. It does not detail the optional fields like title, boostId, or actionId, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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: keep a copy of the generated files (videos, images, slides, UGC, voice tracks) in the results app's Assets tab so the founder can watch and download on any device. The scope is precise enough that an agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like record_action or boost_record without opening any schema.

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 the exact when and how: only after the files are on the Desktop, call first with `files`, upload each with the returned curl, then call again with `confirm` plus the ids. It also names the fallback condition explicitly, stating that failure never blocks the hand-over because the Desktop folder serves as the hand-over.

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