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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully adds the quota basis ('direct-edit allowance'), cost, refusal behavior for unsupported changes, and the retry/idempotency rule, but it does not state how prior bounds are affected or whether the change can be undone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, followed by short operational notes in rough dependency order (precondition, save behavior, refusal, retry, quota/cost). Slightly dense with operational boilerplate, but every sentence carries usable information.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, and the description fills in prerequisite workflow, payability of the result, refusal semantics, and a follow-up path ('check_video with_download'). Only the precise meaning of 'refuse without rebuilding' and irreversibility of bounds changes remain unstated.

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 all six parameters are already documented, including operation_id retry semantics. The description adds workflow provenance for base_version/output_id, but its claim that output_id comes from get_project_context mildly diverges from the schema's 'one output from check_video', so it does not clearly exceed 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 ('Set the scene's first and last transcript word numbers') and immediately clarifies the effect ('shorten a graphic without removing the footage underneath'), which distinguishes it from remove_scene and cut_video_words. An agent reading only this line knows what changes and what is preserved.

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 explicit sequencing ('Read get_project_context first and pass its base_version and selected output_id') and a clear use case. It doesn't name a sibling alternative (e.g. cut_video_words) for when the underlying footage should also go, so a small routing gap remains.

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