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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and delivers three concrete behaviors beyond the schema: the prior cut is retained as a version (non-destructive), the call spends credits (cost awareness), and the operation is asynchronous with a stated polling loop. That is exactly the disclosure an agent needs before invoking a credit-consuming mutation.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it does, what is preserved, and what it costs plus how to track completion. The action and its examples are front-loaded 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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate, and it does for cost, destructiveness, and async tracking. It is slightly thin on what the call returns (e.g., an updated id or version handle), though the polling instruction largely covers how to verify the result.

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%, so id, note, and at are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The note examples in the description add intuitive meaning to the note parameter, but the optional 'at' second-marker is left to the schema alone.

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?

Specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('a ready video') with two concrete note examples that make the operation tangible, and it references get_video for polling, which separates it from the read siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with create_video or list_videos, so sibling differentiation is partial rather than explicit.

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?

States the precondition ('a ready video') and the follow-up workflow ('poll get_video until revising is false'), which is real usage guidance an agent needs. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g., that a new video requires create_video instead of a note).

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