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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), while the description supplies the consequential details an agent actually needs: credits are charged up front (40 default), refunded on permanent failure, a 402 keeps the draft intact, and repeated calls are retry-safe returning the first submission. This is exactly the value-add the annotations cannot provide.

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 critical constraint (approved-only) is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational information. It is dense but not padded, though parentheticals such as "(any mismatch was in the draft's warnings)" and "with the default voice" add length that could be tightened without losing meaning.

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, yet the description covers cost, refund policy, idempotency, billing failures, the async lifecycle, the polling cadence, and the terminal/blocked states. That is everything needed to call this mutation safely and correctly.

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 50%: idempotencyKey is documented in the schema itself, and the description reinforces its effect by explaining retry-safety. However, draftId's type and meaning get no elaboration beyond 'approved draft', and the description does not tie its cost/refund behavior back to draft fields like estimatedCredits in a way that clarifies the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Render an approved draft") and immediately constrains it to approved drafts, which cleanly separates it from the sibling autoshort_draft_video that creates the draft in the first place. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 states an explicit precondition ("Call ONLY after the user has seen the draft and said yes") and gives a full follow-up protocol: poll autoshort_get_video every 20-30 seconds until COMPLETED or FAILED, then act on blockedReason. The when-to-call and what-to-do-next guidance is unusually complete.

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