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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the call charges the credits quoted by draft_episode, that the charge is refunded on failure, and that the returned player card self-polls rather than requiring manual polling. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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-loaded with the primary action, then the cost/refund note, the confirmation gate, the optional-scenes clause, and the polling instruction. Each sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the billing, refund, and async-polling behavior an agent needs. For a mutating, credit-charging tool this is complete.

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 67%. The description restates the scenes semantics already present in the schema ('replace the script with the user's edits') and adds little, while the required 'story' parameter is documented in neither the schema nor the description. Baseline 3 for the moderate coverage with only marginal added meaning.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Approve a drafted episode and start rendering it') and explicitly ties itself to draft_episode, the sibling that produces the episode id. An agent can distinguish it from draft_episode and get_video without opening any 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?

It states the gating condition plainly ('Only after the user has seen the script and said yes') and gives an explicit anti-pattern ('do not poll get_video while it is showing'), naming the alternative tool and the situation that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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