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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description's negative list reinforces that profile while adding the account-linking prerequisite and the private-visibility constraint. Beyond that it says nothing about what the review session does or returns, so it adds moderate value over structured fields only.

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, no filler, and the positive scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion list.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented two-parameter schema, and an output schema, the description covers the prerequisites and scope boundaries an agent needs. The only gap is that "focused review" is not further characterized, though the output schema can fill that in.

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 100% and the workspaceId description already carries detailed resolution rules, so the description adds nothing about parameters and needs to add nothing. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ("Open a focused review of one private Instavar video") and immediately excludes adjacent capabilities (edit, render, approve, publish), which cleanly separates it from siblings like edit_video_brief and get_video_render_status.

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 precondition ("after account linking") and explicit when-not-to-use coverage via the negative list. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling for the excluded operations, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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