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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new information: the delete cascades to every draft the plan was rewritten from and into, plus their drawn frames, and the operation fails with a 409 when a video exists. The garbled phrasing weakens it, and it does not state whether the deletion is recoverable.

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 text is malformed and self-repeating: "with every draft of it Deletes the shot list with the drafts it was rewritten from and into" restates the same cascade twice in broken syntax. The important cascade and 409 facts are present but buried in unparseable structure rather than front-loaded.

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 single-parameter destructive delete with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the two things the agent most needs: what is destroyed alongside the plan, and the failure condition. Missing only recoverability and confirmation expectations, and the garbled wording makes the cascade scope harder to trust than it should be.

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% with a single required plan_id already documented with its pattern, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-source detail beyond what the schema supplies, which is the baseline case.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a shot list") and ties it to the plan_id resource, which distinguishes it from delete_video, delete_music_video_look, and delete_music_video_lookbook in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, and the run-on grammar blurs the statement of scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

A precondition is implied: the shot list must not have had a video made from it, and a 409 is returned if it did. That is a constraint rather than routing guidance; the description never says what to do instead (delete_video, cancel_video, or leaving the plan in place), so the agent must infer the alternative path.

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