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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent, but the description adds substantially: unsupported changes refuse rather than rebuild, a playable project is saved while file export is a separate step, operation_id must be preserved on retries, and the call draws on the account's direct-edit allowance at no credit cost. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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 action and its preservation guarantee, then supporting operational detail in short clauses. Dense and largely telegraphic, but virtually every sentence carries a distinct constraint; only the trailing cost sentence is close to boilerplate.

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?

With an output schema handling return shape and annotations covering safety, the description fills the remaining gaps: prerequisites, version pinning, refusal behavior, retry identity, export path, and cost. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 83%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the layer enum. The description still adds value by tying base_version and output_id to get_project_context/check_video and by explaining retry semantics for operation_id.

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 ('Remove the graphic or camera movement from this scene') and immediately scopes it ('preserving its footage and captions'), which distinguishes it from remove_scene and add_scene without the agent opening any schema.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Read get_project_context first and pass its base_version and selected output_id') and routes file retrieval to check_video with_download. It does not explicitly name remove_scene as the alternative when the entire scene should go, so the exclusion is only implied.

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