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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is a static guidance payload equivalent to the guidance://workflows MCP resource, and it exists specifically for clients that don't read resources — which tells the agent this call has no side effects and no input-dependent output variation.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then routing rules, then the trigger condition. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or annotations.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description covers purpose, trigger timing, and the resource equivalence. For a no-input, read-only guidance tool this is fully sufficient to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description is needed here and nothing is misleading.

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 deliverable: the canonical run → remix → export flow plus when to use each workflow tool. This clearly distinguishes it from action siblings like script_to_video or remix_project. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other guidance siblings (e.g., get_tools_vs_workflows_guidance, get_getting_started_guidance), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 direct when-to-use instruction ('Call before starting a full video project') and even routes between alternatives ('Prefer script_to_video for longer narrated / informational videos; keep storyboard_to_video to ≤3 scenes unless the user asks for more'). That is explicit selection guidance an agent can act on without inference.

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