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

Adds real context beyond annotations: no credits spent, no media generated, direction/purchase guards enforced, and changed revisions refused. The idempotentHint already signals retry safety, but the description usefully explains the exact-revision matching and side-effect profile.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the binding constraint, then guards, then side effects. 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?

An output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety; the description fills in the preconditions, refusal semantics, and non-effects an agent needs to call this mutation correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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, but the description adds meaning by stressing 'exact current revisionId' and that changed revisions are refused — reinforcing the tight coupling between the parameter and success.

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 (records approval) plus resource (customer's storyboard) and the precise mechanism ('using the app's approval service'). It names the exact binding key (current revisionId), which distinguishes this action from submit/prepare siblings an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Conveys preconditions ('Changed revisions are refused', exact current revisionId required) but never states when to choose this over alternatives like studio_storyboard_submit or studio_storyboard_readiness, nor when approval is appropriate. Usage is implied by the state guards rather than explicitly routed.

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