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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false distance, while the description discloses crucial async behavior (returns job_id), polling requirements, in-memory job volatility, redeploy dropping jobs, and resubmission guidance. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and materially helps an agent avoid failed calls.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the core action and async workflow are front-loaded, and the later sentences address model selection, job lifecycle, and sibling routing. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 an async, broad-catalog media generation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to submit, which model id to pass, how to poll, what to read from the result, error modes, and when to defer to another tool set. Nothing critical is missing.

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 only partial, but the description meaningfully enriches parameters: it clarifies the i2v_id/t2v_id distinction, explains how image_url, image_urls, and reference_urls are treated for image/reference models, and notes that image_url switches to image-to-video for video generation. This adds critical semantics not obvious from the schema.

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 and resource: 'Generate media with ANY Media Forge model' and explicitly differentiates itself from the video_editor_* workflow tools. The scope is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling generation/list/poll tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use instructions: call list_models FIRST, pass an exact id, and choose i2v_id when supplying image_url versus t2v_id otherwise. It also names the alternative sibling workflow ('For reference + spoken dialogue, prefer the video_editor_* tools'), providing clear routing guidance.

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