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

Beyond the annotations (non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses concrete side effects: optimistic version checking via the expected revision, that originals and media are preserved, and that prior quotes become stale so paid rendering needs a new quote. This is meaningful mutation context, though it does not say what happens when the version check fails.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and concurrency behavior, then consequences. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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 four-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the operation, safety-relevant effects, and billing implications. The main gap is routing guidance against sibling tools, which is a separate concern.

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 0% and no parameter is described by name, but 'optimistic version checking' effectively explains the role of expectedRevision as a concurrency guard. projectId, documentId, and revisionId still carry no added meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Restores a saved scene as a new revision') and adds the key nuance that a new revision is created rather than the original overwritten. It is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts with the closely related siblings (studio_motion_update, studio_motion_use, studio_motion_create), so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by the effect ('restores a saved scene as a new revision') and the downstream note about stale quotes. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as studio_motion_update for editing versus restoring.

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