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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotation fact — that a revision consumes one of the account's edits and only works 'when a revision is available' — but it never says what gets destroyed, whether the original video is preserved, or whether the request is synchronous.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly ambiguous ('edits' is not clearly credits/quota), but there is no padding.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the input model and the quota constraint but omits what happens to the original video, what a successful or failed request returns, and whether it is async.

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% for both parameters. 'In plain words' usefully signals that change is free-text natural language, but video_id is left entirely unexplained — no format, no hint that it comes from list_videos/check_video, no mention of the 2000-char limit.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource: request a change to a finished video, submitted in plain words. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling edit_video, which an agent would reasonably consider the same task, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus edit_video or check_video. The only contextual clue is the quota note about consuming a linked-account edit, which describes cost rather than when this tool is the right choice.

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