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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation; the description adds genuinely new behavior: no credit consumed, no regeneration of footage, and the prior version is retained. It does not say whether the call is synchronous or how the new version is identified, which would complete the picture.

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, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the cost/safety caveats trailing where they belong. Every clause carries information the schema does not.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema and partial parameter coverage, yet the description covers what changes, cost, and reversibility. Missing only the return shape (new production/version identifier) and any latency or async expectations.

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 only 40%, and the three undocumented booleans (trimSilence, soundEffects, polishedOverlays) are each mapped to a concrete behavior in the description — trimming quiet heads/tails, procedural sound accents, polished on-screen text. The parenthetical '(presenter/campaign films)' even hints at when overlays apply, though it never states the flags are optional toggles defaulting on/off.

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 ('Creates a new version from the saved footage') and enumerates the actual edits performed: trim, sound accents, on-screen text. An agent knows exactly what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself by name from siblings like retry_production or create_production.

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?

'No regeneration or credit' and 'previous version stays available' imply this is the cheap, non-destructive alternative to re-running a production, but no sibling is named and no explicit when-not-to-use condition is given. Usage has to be inferred from the phrasing rather than stated.

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