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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false annotations: it discloses that the call spends credits, that only the mask had been charged until now, that a NEW video row is returned while the paused row persists, and that the backend refuses with named reasons (nicht_wartend, bereits_freigegeben) before charging.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the cost warning, and every sentence carries consequence (preview check, refund/charging behavior, refusal reasons). It is dense and slightly run-on with multiple em-dash asides, which costs it a point on structure.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return (a new video row plus the retained paused row), the error surface (named refusal reasons), and the cost model. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 genuine meaning: it explains the job_id/video_id alternatives resolve to the same paused row, and that omitting get_cost is what actually incurs the charge. It stops just short of adding format/syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 precise verb and resource: it releases a paused PERSON-reference run (lab_reference_motion with use_depth 'personen') and starts the paid model run. It is clearly distinguished from sibling lab_reference_motion, which produced the paused row this tool acts on.

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: only after the human has inspected the mask preview, and it names where the preview lives (metadata.personen_referenz_url). It also prescribes the get_cost preflight before spending credits, and routes to lab_job_status for the paused id.

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