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

With annotations only covering the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), the description adds real context: the exact cost ('the whole cost, exactly the total the plan showed'), autonomous execution ('puts ... on every clip as it lands, on its own'), and progress monitoring ('The plan card shows progress; do not poll'). These are traits structured fields cannot convey.

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-loads the action and stays to three sentences, each carrying content (effect, gating condition, monitoring). The parenthetical asides and conversational tone cost it a little crispness but nothing is wasted.

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 described, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. The description covers cost, autonomy, and the no-polling rule, leaving only failure/refund behavior unstated, which is minor here.

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% and each parameter is self-documented ('The plan id from plan_content', 'True only after the user agreed to the total', the max_credits ceiling). The description largely repeats the confirm semantics and only loosely ties the cost statement to max_credits, adding little beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a plan from plan_content') and clarifies the effect: it makes the plan's clips and attaches hooks and footage. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling plan_content (which creates the plan), but the phrasing 'puts each day's hook and the footage on every clip as it lands, on its own' is a touch vague for an agent to parse.

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?

Gives a clear gating condition ('Only with confirm true after the user agreed to the total') and operational guidance ('do not poll'). It sets the context in which this tool rather than plan_content or make_videos is chosen, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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