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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, destructive, idempotent, and open-world traits. The description adds genuinely new context: it spends AI credits (cost/irreversibility) and is asynchronous, requiring polling via generation_jobs_get. That async + cost disclosure goes beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value facts (what it does, cost, then next step). Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the async-job/cost model is covered. What remains slightly thin is guidance on choosing this over sibling generation tools, but for a 6-param tool with full schema coverage it is largely complete.

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 prompt, loop, durationSeconds, promptInfluence, workspaceId, and idempotencyKey are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ("Queue") and resource ("sound effect") and locates it in the BlitzReels media library. It implicitly distinguishes from generation_music_create and generation_voiceover_create by naming the artifact type, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

Implies usage through "returns a job to poll with generation_jobs_get," which correctly points to the follow-up tool, but gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives (e.g. music vs voiceover vs sound effect) and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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