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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: 'No charge for quoting,' the exact output fields of new quotes, and the retry semantics ('Identical requestId retries return the original quotes'). It stops short of explaining what is destroyed despite destructiveHint=true.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and the parameter basis for pricing. Every sentence carries distinct information (outputs, retries, historical approvals, cost). Slightly jargon-heavy but not padded.

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 need not be spelled out, yet the description still enumerates quote fields (operationId, quoteToken, revisionId, modelId, mode, priceVersion, totalCredits), aiding comprehension. Combined with retry and cost notes, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only the destructiveHint aspect is left 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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaning: operationId is 'original', requestId is 'new', and stableShotIds are 'selected'. It reinforces the idempotency contract for requestId, which is a semantic nuance the schema only partially captures. It does not describe format constraints, but those live in 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Prices requested picture changes by original projectId/operationId, a new requestId and selected stableShotIds.' An agent can tell this is the quoting step for storyboard picture changes. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from tools like studio_storyboard_stills_quote or studio_generation_quote.

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 implies usage context by distinguishing 'new approvals' (produce separate picture-only quotes) from 'historical approvals' (can complete previously approved paid picture changes). This hints at when the tool applies, but gives no explicit when-not conditions or named alternative tools to use instead.

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