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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: what is preserved (videos stay in the media library) and that acceptFindings acknowledges outstanding automated findings, i.e. that the call can succeed with unresolved warnings. It omits reversibility – idempotentHint=false and the existence of restore_production make it important to say whether completion can be undone and what a repeat call does.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the precondition, which is the right order for a gated mutation. The opening colon fragment ('Only after the person has played every export:') is slightly awkward but costs nothing.

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 a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the essentials are covered: precondition, retention of media, and the meaning of acceptFindings. What is missing is the failure/undo story – whether completion is terminal, what a second call returns given idempotentHint=false, and whether findings can block the call when acceptFindings is false.

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%: productionId is documented in the schema, but acceptFindings has no schema description. The description fills exactly that gap, explaining that true acknowledges remaining automated findings and implying default false means completion is blocked or flagged by them. That is real meaning beyond the schema, though it does not spell out the consequence of leaving it false.

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: 'marks the production completed'. It also adds a distinguishing outcome ('keeps the videos in the media library'), which implicitly separates it from remove_production and cancel_production. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gating condition: 'Only after the person has played every export'. That is a real when-to-use rule an agent can act on. It does not name alternatives or describe what to do when the condition is unmet (e.g. run_quality_check first, or restore_production afterwards).

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