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

The description discloses that the call is project-scoped, only uses the explicit project_id rather than the active-project pointer, and returns the project identity with its result. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context without needing to restate them.

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 sentences: the first establishes scope and return value, the second states the operation and points to the correct sibling. No filler, front-loaded with the most important constraint.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation, the description covers scope, object of action, id source, and return contract. It also names an unambiguous alternative (remove_zoom), fully equipping an agent to decide and invoke.

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 covers 50% of parameters; the description adds value by saying 'see get_edl' to locate the zoom idaint, and the project_id parameter already has a detailed schema description. This meaningfully fills the gap for the undocumented 'id' parameter.

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: 'Remove one keyframed travelling zoom by its id.' It explicitly contrasts with remove_zoom ('ordinary punch/ease zooms'), so an agent can tell the two apart immediately. The PROJECT-SCOPED prefix adds a clear boundary.

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?

Directs the agent to use remove_zoom for ordinary punch/ease zooms, implying remove_zoom_path is for keyframed travelling zooms. It also instructs to find the id via get_edl. This is explicit selection guidance, not just inferred.

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