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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses cost ($3/video, no trial), hard limits (1 file, .mp4/.avi, 150 MB, 1920x1080, 360 s or 180 s with restoration), that only detected regions are masked rather than the whole frame, that restoration requires a registered key and that this MCP has no decrypt tool. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation/pipeline tool.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then the reversible-vs-permanent decision, then price and limits, then the remote-client workflow. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the restoration limits are restated in both the prose and the parameter schema, and the Korean/English alias list is optional bulk.

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 an 8-parameter, high-stakes file-processing tool with no annotations, this covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: prerequisites (server-side path, registered key), cost, hard limits, reversibility implications, and the fallback workflow for remote clients. Return values are covered by the output schema, so their absence from the description is fine.

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 75%, and the description adds real semantic value beyond it: the coupling between restoration and key_index/key_name (0/"null" for permanent), the shorter 180 s limit under restoration, and the constraint that file_path must exist on the server. Minor gap: file_type and encrypt_object_label remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('One-shot video anonymization') and enumerates exactly what gets detected and masked (body, face, car/license plates). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the detect+blur tool chain and, by naming the sibling workflow tools, from submit_encrypt_job/encrypt_image as well.

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 routing: use this tool for one-shot local-path anonymization; remote clients must go upload_file_content -> submit_encrypt_job -> get_job_status -> get_job_result; live policy should be fetched via get_encrypt_constraints(file_kind="video") and get_pricing_policy. It also states the when-not condition (no free video trial, split longer clips first).

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