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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it returns a Studio approval link, this call does not save copy or start a render, the signed-in user must approve in Studio, approval consumes rerender credits and revokes existing review links, previous run records are retained, publishing is excluded, and requestId must be preserved for unchanged retries. This is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence establishes purpose and scope, followed by the approval workflow and side-effect warnings. Every sentence carries operational value, and no important warning is buried.

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 complex approval workflow with no output schema, the description is strong: it explains the return artifact, approval consequences, credit consumption, link revocation, record retention, and reretry behavior. The main remaining gap is that it does not clarify how omitted editable fields are handled or what the required confirmed parameter signifies.

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?

The description names the editable copy fields (title, script, caption) and explains requestId must be preserved for unchanged retries, which adds meaning beyond the schema. But schema description coverage is only 14%, and the description does not explain jobId, the required confirmed boolean, or whether omitted copy fields are preserved or cleared.

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: prepare exact title, script, or caption changes for an existing private video. It also distinguishes this edit workflow from creation and publishing by saying 'existing private video' and 'Does not publish.' An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 context is clear: use this for copy changes on an existing private video, and note that it only prepares an approval link rather than saving copy or rendering. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_video_brief or review_video_project, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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