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

Annotations declare a destructive, non-read-only, closed-world mutation; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing quota consumption ("uses one of the linked account's edits") and the asynchronous upload-link flow with its 15-minute expiry. It does not say what happens to an existing edit or whether the operation is reversible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the fallback upload path; every sentence carries information. Slightly dense but 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 destructive, async mutation with no output schema and zero schema-description coverage, the description covers the non-obvious upload flow well but says nothing about the other four parameters or the result of an edit. An agent can initiate the call but must guess at format/style/instruction semantics.

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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, including a nested video object, an enum format, a large style_id enum, and a 2000-char instructions field. The description only clarifies the video parameter (file upload vs. link) and leaves title, format, style_id, and instructions entirely undocumented.

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 concrete verb+resource ("Edit one video in Clypmint") with a clear scope of one video. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling revise_video, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

Gives real operational guidance for one path: attach the file when the chat supports uploads, otherwise a 15-minute private upload link is returned and editing begins when the video arrives. It offers no guidance on when to choose this over revise_video or check_video, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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