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

The description discloses side effects: fetches the file, creates/reuses a job, stores results, records activity, and may delete a temporary uploaded copy. It adds context to the destructiveHint by clarifying the local original is unchanged, consistent with annotations.

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?

The description is detailed but each sentence adds necessary information about behavior, outputs, and constraints. It is longer than minimal but not verbose or redundant.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values (metrics, storyboard images, optional transcript) and their conditions (image limits, transcript truncation). It also covers side effects and edge cases, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100% with 'link to the video'. The description adds the requirement that the video be downloadable and up to 15 minutes, providing slightly more semantic meaning than the schema alone.

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 clearly states it analyzes a downloadable video for soundtrack planning, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it does not edit or score the video.

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 intended use case (soundtrack planning) and the tool's output (duration, frame rate, resolution, etc.) are specified, giving clear context. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the purpose is evident and enough to guide selection.

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