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

With annotations marking this as destructive and open-world, the description adds concrete behavioral details: it can replace the project's generated timeline and spend existing credits, and it starts animation, narration and timeline assembly. It does not discuss idempotency or return behavior, but it goes meaningfully beyond 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the approval prerequisite and effect, with no obvious filler. 'Follow the revision and then export' is slightly vague but still earns its place as workflow guidance.

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, credit-spending production tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers prerequisite, side effects and next step. It is only incomplete on parameter details, which the low schema coverage leaves partly unexplained.

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 only 20%, and the description only clarifies confirmApproved (must be true) while leaving workspaceId, idempotencyKey, projectId and revisionId without added meaning. 'Follow the revision' is too vague to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

Description specifies the trigger (user approves previews and animation cost) and the resulting action (starts scene animation, narration, editable timeline assembly), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not distinguish itself from sibling approval or generation tools such as video_storyboard_approve or generation_video_create, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states the prerequisite condition ('After the user approves...') and indicates the next workflow step ('then export the finished project'), giving clear context for invocation. It does not exclude alternatives or name a competing tool, so it is a 4.

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