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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it saves a playable project, unsupported changes refuse without rebuilding, operation_id must be preserved on retries, and it uses the account's direct-edit allowance at no credit cost. These details clarify mutation behavior, retry semantics, and billing without contradicting destructiveHint=true or idempotentHint=true.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are mostly dense and useful. It is slightly procedural and could be organized more crisply, but every sentence carries operational 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?

Given the mutation, seven parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the key workflow: prerequisite context, version/output selection, retry safety, save behavior, separate file retrieval, and cost. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 high at 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow meaning for base_version and output_id by tying them to get_project_context and also explains operation_id retry behavior, though it does not elaborate on text, scene_id, or video_id beyond 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 one text field' on the 'selected scene', with 'screen.title' as an example. The scope is narrow enough to distinguish it from broader siblings like set_element_content or replace_scene_screen.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: read get_project_context first and pass base_version and selected output_id. Also gives follow-up guidance for requesting a file separately via check_video. It lacks an explicit when-not or named alternative for editing other kinds of scene content, but the practical usage context is clear.

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