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

Annotations already establish readOnly/destructive=false, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: it does not persist, and it enumerates the validation findings it surfaces (overflow, truncated anchors, invalid fades, crop warnings). The BETA status and account-tier/export limits add operational context, though the tier quota text concerns exports rather than this call.

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 core purpose is correctly front-loaded in the first sentence, but the middle sentence about BETA dates and per-tier export quotas is largely irrelevant to invoking a validation call and consumes a substantial share of the text.

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 usefully describes what the call reports (overflow, anchors, fades, crop warnings) and gives a prerequisite tool. The main gap is that it never explains the concurrency/idempotency contract implied by expectedRevision and idempotencyKey.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only re-lists the four names in parentheses with no semantics for expectedRevision (optimistic-concurrency token?) or idempotencyKey, and 'operations[]' is explained only by delegating to video_guide rather than here.

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 ('validate a typed edit batch') plus the key scoping fact 'without saving', which distinguishes it from the sibling video_edit_apply. An agent can tell what it does and what it does not do (persist changes) without opening the 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 workflow prerequisite ('Call video_guide first for the catalog, the exact input schema of each action and this account's tier notes') and implies a pre-apply validation step via 'without saving'. It stops short of explicitly naming video_edit_apply or stating when validation is optional vs required.

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