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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the economics and mutability profile: every field is free and reversible until greenlight, the quote re-prices live, and the default lower-upscale finish incurs a billed pass per clip. That is exactly the cost/permission context an agent needs before mutating a project.

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?

The first clause front-loads the most decision-relevant fact (everything is optional, free, and reversible), and the delivery caveat follows in priority order. The middle sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct meaning; nothing is 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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, key gaps remain: whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, and how the 5 image-model and 15 video-model options differ in cost or quality. The description covers the scoping and delivery model well but leaves an agent guessing on the largest enum sets.

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 53%, and the description does real work on the hardest pair — target_resolution (mastering) versus finish (native vs lower-upscale, with lower-upscale named as the default), which is non-obvious even with the schema text. But roughly half the parameters (image_model, video_model, aspect_ratio, visual_style, dialogue_mode, genre, theme) get no explanation of cost, tradeoffs, or defaults, so the gap is only partly closed.

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 names a concrete verb (set) and the specific resources it configures (the script and the movie's format), so an agent knows exactly what class of operation this is. It implicitly separates itself from greenlight (changeable until greenlight) but never names or contrasts a sibling tool directly.

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 gives a clear operating window (all optional, all free, all changeable until greenlight) that tells the agent this is the pre-approval tuning step, and explicitly scopes out anything not listed ('configured in the app's Setup page'). It stops short of naming alternatives such as build_plan or quote for the post-configuration steps.

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