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

Annotations only say it is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation. The description goes far beyond: the video appears in the Community, may be featured on kinetune.com, the Look (with defined scope for music vs lyric videos) becomes reusable, the workspace holds the Look's reward credits, re-sharing replaces earlier choices, and a staff-hidden video stays hidden.

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 core action and the consent rule are front-loaded well, but the body is one dense multi-clause sentence with nested parentheticals about Look definitions that is hard to parse. The sibling/alternative guidance sits at the very end rather than being surfaced earlier.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: prerequisites (delivered video), consent constraints per flag, consequences of the call, idempotent re-share semantics, and pointers to get_video and unshare_video for follow-up.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema does not: rights_confirmed is required for a music video, socials ties to credit_handle and the named platforms, and both must never be inferred from an earlier answer. Minor deduction because the per-field mapping is spread across prose rather than clearly aligned.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ("Show a delivered video in the Community") and states the side effect on the video's Look. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like unshare_video and set_look_visibility, which the text explicitly routes to.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: only when the user asks in their own words, ask first, never act on your own, and only for a delivered (completed) video. It also names unshare_video as the inverse and get_video as the way to inspect current sharing state.

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