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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the destructive/non-idempotent annotations: hosted edits require a fresh same-target read receipt, renderer-schema errors reject the entire update, and it explains side effects such as frame updates, music reset behavior, appName fallback copy, and project renaming.

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?

The core replacement behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by prerequisite and field-effect details. The semicolon-separated clauses are dense but each carries actionable 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 full-config replacement with nested objects, the description covers the replacement model, read-receipt requirement, error handling, and notable side effects. Return-value details are not needed because an output schema exists.

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 moderate at 71%, and the description adds meaningful effects for several parameters: readReceipt is tied to hosted edits, appName affects fallback copy, projectName renames the whole project, and config changes have described downstream effects.

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?

It gives a specific verb and resource: 'Replaces a complete saved promo-video configuration for one variant/language.' That clearly separates it from generation, preview, and export tools by scope, but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or exclusion.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Replaces a complete saved ... configuration,' and the read-receipt prerequisite is stated. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus apply_promo_video_candidate, generate_promo_video, or translate_promo_video.

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