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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is browser-based and that telops are burned onto the video, but it does not clarify whether the original file is overwritten, what input formats are accepted, or what the output looks like. The permanence of '焼付' is implied but not elaborated.

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 a single, informationally dense sentence that complements the title. It includes relevant style examples and notes the browser-based nature, with no extraneous words.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of guidance. It covers purpose and style but omits input/output mechanics, usage steps, and potential limitations, leaving an agent under-informed about what to expect when invoking the tool.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description accurately focuses on the tool's purpose without needing to explain parameters, and it succeeds in providing context beyond the empty 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 clearly states the tool's function: burning Japanese variety-style telops (yellow zabuton, outlines, red shock) onto video. It uses a specific verb ('焼付') and resource ('video'), and the examples distinguish it from sibling tools like telop-image-generator or text-overlay-maker.

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 implies when to use the tool (when adding TV-style telops to videos) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It does not reference any sibling tools, so an agent would only infer usage from the purpose.

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