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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the default is to keep, and kept results propagate into the film at update_3d_film time. It omits whether the shot must already be remade, permission requirements, and what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences with the action and default front-loaded, and the downstream consequence second. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 a minimal mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema this is only adequate. Preconditions (that a remake must be finished) and the effect on the shot/state after discarding are not spelled out.

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%; keep and video_id are already documented in the schema and the description largely restates the keep default. The required 'shot' parameter has no schema description and the description does not clarify how a shot is identified or what happens if it is not a finished remake.

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 pair (keep/discard) and resource (a finished remake of a shot), which is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like fix_3d_shot or list_3d_shots. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it falls 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?

The clause 'Kept remakes go into the film when update_3d_film runs' gives implied context for when this is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for the discard path.

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