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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that retries with an identical operationId/input reconcile the same edit and that there is no model call or credit charge. What it does not clarify is what the destructive/mutating aspect actually affects (e.g. revision bump or failed-edit behavior), leaving a gap against the destructiveHint annotation.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, with mechanics and cost following. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers cost, idempotency, and the revision/operationId contract, but omits what happens on a revision conflict or why the tool is flagged destructive, which would round out a mutation tool.

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. The description adds semantics beyond the schema for operationId and expectedRevision by framing them around retry reconciliation and the saved plan revision, which helps an agent understand concurrency intent, though it does not touch the other three 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?

States a specific verb (toggle) and a precise resource (whether one dialogue line's speaker is on camera). This clearly separates it from adjacent siblings like studio_film_toggle_sound and studio_film_set_lip_sync without needing to name them.

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?

The description explains mechanics (uses expectedRevision, operationId, retry reconciliation) but never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as studio_film_assign_actor or other Film edit tools. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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