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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing that the change applies directly to the Studio version without committing a draft, that the next final render picks it up, that a delivered final triggers a NEW paid render the line won't start itself, the `deliveredFinal` response flag, the `write` requirement, and $0 cost.

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 packs high-value constraints (clip rules, render implications, cost) into dense sentences. Slightly long with nested parentheticals, but nearly every clause carries operational value.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers effect model, delivery/paid-render consequences, the response flag, auth, and cost — everything an agent needs to call it correctly and warn the user.

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?

Adds real meaning beyond the 60%-covered schema: `scene_index` is 0-based like the VBP, and the `clip` object is explained ({start_sec, duration_sec|end_sec}, ≥2 s, images take no clip). The `shows` and `asset_id` params rely on schema text, so it isn't fully compensating but does clarify the trickiest nested parameter.

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+resource (put a library asset as the visual of ONE scene) and anchors it to a known human workflow («Mi Media»), making scope unambiguous. An agent can tell this apart from list_material or list_versions without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (assigning a specific asset to a single scene, video vs image handling, requires `write`). It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., list_material to discover assets first), so it stops just short of explicit when-not/alternatives guidance.

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