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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint/readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: which state is cleared, that the worker rebuilds from scratch, that the item is not charged again, and the specific busy-refusal error. That is exactly the mutation context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the write/queued tag and the core action. The heavy clause stacking makes it slightly hard to scan, but every clause carries information.

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 destructive, 9-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics and the required parameter well but omits the identity-parameter choice (id vs uuid) and the override params, which an agent must guess at.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it usefully explains that video_ugc is required and matches the create-tool payload, and that absent optional keys retain stored values (a non-obvious merge semantic). However, it never explains video_id vs video_uuid selection or what video_output/video_render_target override, leaving several of the 9 params opaque.

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: restarting a UGC video/film with corrected settings, plus a mode tag ([write, queued]). It names create_ugc_video and create_film_video only for payload shape, so the distinction from the closer siblings retry_ugc_video and regenerate_ugc_clip is left implicit.

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 clear context for use: restart a build with corrected settings, cleared state rebuilt from the start, and no re-pricing. It also states an exclusion (a still-processing video is refused with ERR_VIDEOS_UGC_BUSY), but never compares itself to retry_ugc_video or regenerate_ugc_clip, which are the real alternatives an agent would weigh.

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