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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds the key behavioral detail that it reads the record first and rewrites the entire document. It also clarifies the idempotent nature by stating unchanged values are a no-op. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the behavioral nuance. Every sentence carries value; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations that already convey destructive and idempotent hints, the description adds the crucial read-modify-write context and no-op clarification. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. It is complete enough for an agent to call it 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 only 17% (only videoId and url have descriptions). The description lists example fields ('locale, device, dimensions or media URLs'), which covers several parameters but not all (e.g., format, duration, fileSize). It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but is not exhaustive.

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 states a specific verb ('Correct'), a precise resource ('one registered Tutorializer rendered video'), and names example fields ('locale, device, dimensions or media URLs'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling update tools for other entities (e.g., update_tutorial, update_speech) because it is scoped to videos.

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 explains the read-modify-write behavior, which is critical for safe usage: it reads the stored record first and rewrites the whole document, so unspecified fields retain their values. It also notes that submitting unchanged values is a no-op. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the tool's purpose is clear enough given the sibling set.

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