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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description's 'It is saved once' corroborates the idempotency claim and adds a real workflow constraint about request completeness. However, it never explains what makes this destructive (what the verdict commits, whether it can be revised or undone) or what permissions/state it requires, which is exactly the context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the partial flag, then the completeness obligation — no filler. The final sentence is dense but carries a genuine constraint rather than 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, but this is a destructive, nested-schema, 6-parameter write and the description leaves the delegation_id/request_key relationship, revision semantics, and failure conditions (unfinished task, mismatched catalog version) unaddressed. It is adequate to start a call but not sufficient to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 50%; the schema itself documents report, read_skills and expected_catalog_version. The description adds meaning only for partial ('names the work you could not review') and for report content ('the applied outputs you inspected... and what you found'). It says nothing about delegation_id, request_key or work_id, so half the parameter surface relies on bare 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: recording a verdict on a Film task's finished results, tied to outputs previously inspected with inspect_asset. It distinguishes itself from generic work tools by its post-completion, verdict-recording role, though it never names a competing sibling (e.g. answer_work_question) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

It gives a clear timing condition ('once it has finished') and an explicit prerequisite ordering ('the applied outputs you inspected with inspect_asset in an earlier step'), plus a completeness rule that every handed-out Film task needs a verdict. What is missing is any exclusion — it does not say what to do instead when the task has not finished or when a verdict is not warranted.

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