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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the proposal is immutable, it freezes saved sources/settings, it creates no paid work, and it grants no approval. These details are essential for understanding that this is a write operation with no spending or execution side effects, and they materially supplement the annotation profile of non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive.

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 description is two dense sentences with no wasted wording. The core operation and its key non-effects are front-loaded, and the second sentence sharpens the boundary between freezing a proposal and creating paid work or approval.

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 tool's complexity, a 12-parameter schema, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the most important behavioral caveats: immutability, source/settings freezing, no paid work, and no approval. It does not explain every action/execution_mode combination, but the schema carries that detail. Completeness is strong, with only minor room to mention the preparatory relationship to later execution tools.

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 92%, so the input schema already documents nearly every parameter including action, execution_mode, maximum_credits, and request_key. The description echoes the key concepts of exact Film action, specialist/direct execution, and finite credit ceiling, but adds little syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Save an immutable proposal for an exact Film action.' It also scopes the operation to direct or bounded specialist execution with a finite credit ceiling, and explicitly distinguishes proposal creation from paid work or approval. This makes the tool's purpose clear enough to separate it from siblings like export_film or native.accept_film_work.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool by framing it as saving a proposal rather than executing paid work, and by noting it grants no approval. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as prepare_work_budget or native.accept_film_work, nor does it state a clear when-not condition. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully guided.

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