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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 480p/15fps low-quality profile, the cost rationale, that a URL is returned, and that the agent should fetch and inspect it before editing. It omits whether the export is synchronous or takes time, whether it persists as an artifact, and idempotency/repeat-call behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and result in the first sentence, followed by usage conditions and then behavior. Three sentences, each doing work, though the phrasing is slightly verbose in the middle sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description correctly explains the return value (a video URL to fetch and inspect). For a two-parameter review-export tool the coverage is nearly complete, with only export timing/persistence left unspecified.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents editId and workspaceId. The description implies the project/edit context ('current project') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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, resource and output: export the current project as a low-quality review video and return its URL. It is clearly separable from siblings like export_edit (full-quality export) and review_edit, and it resolves the misleading tool name 'watch_video' by explaining the actual action.

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 explicit triggering conditions: the user explicitly asks to watch/review/analyze, or video generation was approved for an active finished-video skill needing a final review pass. It does not name a sibling alternative or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of 5.

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