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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the output includes examples and that 'recipe' is the default, which is modest additional context for an otherwise purely descriptive lookup.

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?

One compact sentence with the return value front-loaded and the parameter semantics embedded parenthetically, with no wasted wording. Slightly denser parenthetical phrasing would benefit from splitting, but nothing is superfluous.

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?

With an output schema present, rich read-only annotations, and a single optional enum parameter, the description says enough to invoke the tool correctly. The only gap is its lack of relationship to sibling tools such as validate_edit_plan and build_video_link.

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 0% and the single enum member has no inline documentation, so the description carries the burden. It does so effectively by explaining that 'recipe' selects the video recipe schema and is the default, while 'plan' selects the full edit plan schema.

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 names the exact resource returned (JSON Schema of the video recipe or the full edit plan) and its two modes, so an agent knows precisely what the call yields. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling validate_edit_plan, which is the main thing keeping it from a 5.

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 that 'recipe' is the default and that 'plan' returns the fuller schema, which implies usage (fetch this before constructing or validating an edit plan). However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to validate_edit_plan as the downstream step.

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