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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-readonly, destructive, idempotent operation. Beyond that, the description discloses the concrete side effects (voice-over, music, render), that credits are held at confirm, and crucially what happens if the price has increased: nothing runs and the new total is returned for the user.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the critical max_total constraint and failure behavior. Every sentence carries operational value.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral details: side effects, credit gating, and the failure return path. It could be stronger by clarifying the job_id/video_id selection or success response, but the core invocation guidance is complete.

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 description coverage is 67%, and max_total is already documented in the schema. The description adds useful failure behavior for max_total, but does not explain the job_id-video_id choice beyond what the schema partially provides.

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 action and resource: resuming a video that is waiting for storyboard approval, including the downstream voice-over, music and render work. It is clear enough to distinguish from get_storyboard/update_storyboard, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with confirm_operation.

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 condition for use is clear: the video must be waiting for storyboard approval, and max_total must match the total the user accepted. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the triggering context is well specified.

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