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

Goes well beyond the annotations: credit consumption per scene, multi-minute runtime with a required polling tool, and an authentication requirement (client prompts sign-in when the ManyMotions account is missing). These are exactly the traits an agent needs and none are derivable from structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then gating/cost, then runtime and auth. Every clause carries operational information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the async pattern (poll with get_video), cost, and auth. An agent has everything needed to invoke and then track this run correctly.

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 0% and the description says nothing about project_id, but the parameter is a single self-describing identifier and the operation's semantics (which project's video is rendered) are implied by context. No compensating detail is added, so this sits at baseline.

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?

Specific verb ('start the AI production') plus resource ('a prepared video') with the concrete pipeline enumerated (creative direction, script, keyframes, scene videos, final cut). The word 'prepared' implicitly separates it from prepare_presenter_video, and the agent can tell it apart from get_video.

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 gating condition ('Call it only after the user explicitly asked to generate'), an explicit cost warning (250 credits per scene), and an explicit follow-up action ('poll with get_video'). The only minor gap is that prepare_presenter_video is not named as the prerequisite, but 'prepared video' points at it.

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