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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: unsupported changes are refused without rebuilding, retries must preserve operation_id and exact inputs, the operation saves a playable project, file export is separate, and it uses the account's direct-edit allowance. This covers side effects, retry semantics, and resulting state, which is more than the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations alone convey.

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-loads the purpose, then packs prerequisites, save behavior, retry guidance, and cost into short clauses with no filler. Every sentence adds operational value.

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 six parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the key gaps: prerequisite context call, version/output targeting, retry idempotency, refusal behavior, save side effect, export separation, and cost. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 67%, and the description compensates well by explaining intensity as 'subtle or punchy', routing base_version and output_id from get_project_context, and clarifying operation_id retry behavior. It does not explicitly cover sound_effects or video_id semantics, but those are covered or inferable from 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 ('Enable or disable added sound effects') and scope ('Preserve speech and music'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_video_music and set_scene_sounds. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 workflow: read get_project_context first and pass base_version and output_id. It does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives such as set_video_music or set_scene_sounds, so it lacks full when-not guidance, but the context is otherwise actionable.

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