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

Annotations only say non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent; the description adds the material facts an agent needs: it is async with a few-minute latency, returns immediately with a plan_id, costs 6 credits per started 30 minutes of source, and credits are refunded on failure. Credit pricing and latency are behaviors nothing else in the structured data conveys.

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?

Roughly three sentences, front-loaded with the step label and the core action, then sequencing, then cost. Parentheticals (source types, credit rate) are dense but each carries distinct information and none is redundant with the schema.

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 12-parameter async job with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what it returns (plan_id), how long it takes, what it costs, and the exact next call. There is no output schema to explain return values, and the description accounts for that gap.

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 100%, so every parameter (url, upload_id, layout, caption_style, logo_asset_id, idempotency_key, etc.) is already documented in-schema. The description only echoes max_clips and implies the cost scales with source duration; it adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource (analyse a long video, propose up to max_clips viral clips) and scopes the accepted source types (podcast, interview, stream, show; link or upload). It also positions itself as step 1/2 of a named pipeline, which distinguishes it from generate_clips and get_clip_plan without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: returns plan_id immediately, poll get_clip_plan until status is "ready", then call generate_clips. That is a clear when-to-use and a named alternative. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. pre-existing plans or short sources that belong to create_short), so it is not fully exhaustive.

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