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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a new order is created from the original recording, it consumes the same allowance minutes as the original, the result must be polled, and show notes/clips require an explicit request. No contradiction with annotations (the original order is re-edited, not destroyed).

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by cost, follow-up, and request-shaping advice. Each sentence carries information; no padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what is returned (a new order_id) and what to do with it, plus the billing side effect. Error handling and expected latency are not covered, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: instructions must encompass everything that should differ in a single request, and must explicitly ask for regenerated show notes or clips. That is actionable parameter guidance not present in the schema text.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Re-edit a finished order with new instructions') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling barevalue_status by pointing to it as the polling tool. Concrete examples of instructions make the operation unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit follow-up routing ('it returns its order_id: poll barevalue_status on that') and a prerequisite ('confirm with your user first' due to minute usage). It also advises batching all changes into one request. It does not call out when an alternative tool is preferable, so it falls just short of a 5.

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