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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with the high-value statement 'no generation is run', removing a plausible misconception that this tool regenerates. It also discloses process traits beyond annotations: the same-model-first escalation ladder, model switch only as a last resort with stated consistency cost, and that revised prompts are adapted to the user's voice.

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 goal in the first clause before describing inputs and outputs, and every section (inputs, returns, escalation order) carries information. It is dense and runs long in a single sentence block, with the parenthetical issue examples adding bulk, but little is truly wasted.

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 carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does: diagnosis, prompt changes with provenance, revised prompt, and a staged escalation ladder. All seven parameters are accounted for and the read-only nature is explicit, so nothing essential to invoking or interpreting the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it shows the expected granularity of 'issue' with concrete examples ('feet sliding', 'face drifted', 'line cut off'), which the schema's 'What went wrong, in plain words' does not convey. Remaining parameters are only referenced, not elaborated.

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 goal verb+resource: recover from a shot that came out wrong by getting to a usable take with minimal further generations. It enumerates exactly what it produces (diagnosis, specific prompt changes, revised prompt, escalation ladder) and explicitly says no generation is run, so an agent can distinguish it from fix_prompt/best_prompt 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 a clear triggering condition ('when a shot came out wrong') and tells the agent which inputs to pass (prompt, model, mode, what went wrong, optional frame notes). It does not name or exclude the sibling fix_prompt, so the boundary between correcting a prompt here vs. there is left to inference.

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