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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true. The description goes beyond these by spelling out the exact consequence of non-idempotence ('repeating the call registers a second output') and by clarifying that the tool does not perform recording, rendering, or uploading. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second states the side effect, and the third states the boundary. The critical non-idempotence warning is front-loaded early, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 13 parameters, an output schema, and informative annotations. The description supplies the missing conceptual context: what kind of video this is, that it must already be uploaded, that execution is non-idempotent, and that no media generation is involved. Nothing critical is left unexplained for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 85%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds only light grouping of locale, device, dimensions, and media URLs, and repeats the public https URL requirement already stated in the schema. This meets the baseline but adds limited new parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('register') with a clear resource ('one already-uploaded rendered tutorial video') and enumerates what is recorded: locale, device, dimensions and media URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_tutorial and create_speech, which create different resources.

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?

The description explicitly states the precondition: host the video file first and pass its public https URL. It also clearly says what this tool does not do — record, render or upload — making the boundary and usage context unambiguous. Repeating calls registering a second output also warns against unintended reuse.

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