Video Dept. AI

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the concrete side effects: an event on Nikita's calendar, a Google Calendar invite email containing the Meet link, and a cancel link in the result. 'Call it once' explains the non-idempotent hint in operational terms, and 'books the call only' clarifies the boundary of the destructive effect.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the observable outcome, then the usage rule. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (call once, only after agreement) lands last for emphasis.

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?

A 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, yet the description covers the write target, the email side effect, and the return content (cancel link). Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to explain the consequences to the user.

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 100%, so the schema already defines all seven parameters including the optional phone and time_zone. The description adds provenance for `start` (comes from find_call_times) and a confirmation requirement for the contact details, but it does not add field-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 ('Books') plus the exact resource ('a free 30-minute video call with Nikita Marushkov') and ties the input to the sibling tool find_call_times. An agent can distinguish it from find_call_times, get_booking_link, and get_deposit_link without opening any 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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('after the user has seen the exact time in their own time zone and their contact details and agreed') and an invocation rule ('Call it once'). It also scopes the tool negatively with 'It books the call only', which tells the agent not to use it for rescheduling or cancelling.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by confirming "It sends nothing" and by describing the surrounding workflow (the agent writes the draft from the outline, which then travels to Nikita with the brief via send_brief). The only gap is return shape, which is unstated but partly implied by the outline contents listed.

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 what-it-returns detail is front-loaded and the when-to-use and workflow notes follow in a logical order; nearly every clause carries information. The workflow sentence is slightly run-on ("and it goes to Nikita with the brief"), but the trailing "It sends nothing" earns its place as reassurance for a read-only tool.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, downstream handoff and the structure of what comes back. It omits required permissions or any error conditions, but nothing suggests those are relevant for an idempotent, closed-world read.

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%, so both video_type and length_seconds are fully documented in the schema, including the enum values and the 5–3600 second bounds. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Returns an outline for the script of a video") and enumerates the outline's contents — parts in order, timing, word counts, two-column format, writing rules. This is far more than a restatement of the title, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling plan_a_video, so an agent must infer the division of labour.

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?

"Use it when the user wants a script draft" gives a clear triggering condition, and the follow-on sentence routes the agent to send_brief for the handoff downstream. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it — notably it doesn't distinguish itself from plan_a_video, which shares the same video_type enum.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds real business behavior beyond them: the booking window, minimum lead time, business hours, and that time_zone only affects presentation, not availability.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by constraints and the handoff to book_call. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining what a result looks like (an exact start token for book_call) and what constrains the set. Only the shape of the returned list and empty-result behavior are left unstated, which is minor for a two-optional-param read tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying that time_zone is for displaying times in the user's zone (not filtering them) and by reinforcing the two-week bound on from_date.

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: returns Nikita Marushkov's open times for a 30-minute Google Meet call. It also scopes the output (exact start times) and distinguishes itself from the sibling book_call, which consumes those times.

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 flow is clear: call this first, then pass an exact start to book_call. Eligibility constraints (Mon–Fri, 10–6 ET, last call 5 PM, 4 hours ahead, two weeks out) tell the agent when results will and won't exist, though there's no explicit 'do not use this to book' exclusion.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with two behavioral facts annotations cannot convey: the consent requirement before an agent proceeds, and that times render in the user's own time zone. It does not mention that the returned URL points to an external site, which sits slightly awkwardly with openWorldHint=false but does not rise to a contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by who acts on it and the time-zone note; each sentence carries information. The appositive 'Nikita Marushkov, the studio's founder' is slightly more than the agent needs but is harmless orientation.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return — the page plus the bookable hours — and adds the time-zone behavior an agent would otherwise have to discover. What is missing is the handoff logic to book_call and find_call_times, which matters given the dense sibling set.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. No parameter noise is introduced.

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 — it returns the booking page and the bookable hours — and names the person and purpose, so an agent knows this is a lookup, not a booking action. It implicitly separates itself from find_call_times and book_call by describing the return as a page rather than times or a reservation, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 clear operating context: the user picks a time on the page, or a web-capable agent navigates it on the user's behalf after the user agrees to the time and contact details. The consent precondition is a genuinely useful usage rule. It stops short of saying when to prefer find_call_times or book_call instead, which is the main routing gap in a crowded sibling set.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the response is scoped to status and dates only, the reply body is never returned but goes to the recorded email address, and the tool mutates nothing. The final sentence "It changes nothing" largely restates readOnlyHint, which is why this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the outcome states and the input requirement front-loaded, which is the right order for a status-check tool. It loses a little to the closing "It changes nothing" restating an existing annotation, but there is no filler or hedging.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (status plus dates), what is not returned (the reply), and the exact provenance of the required inputs, which is the main failure mode for this call. Only minor operational details, such as how to recover a missing brief number or email, are absent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with examples and length bounds, making 3 the baseline. The description does add one piece of meaning the schema lacks — that the email must be the one the brief was originally sent with, not just any address — but it repeats the "A-12" example already present in the 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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("Returns where a brief... stands") and enumerates the possible states: with Nikita, replied, fixed quote sent, free call booked. It also explicitly ties itself to the sibling send_brief, so an agent can distinguish the read-back tool from the sending tool without opening either 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?

Usage is clearly implied and anchored: the tool is the status check for a brief previously sent with send_brief, and the caller must supply the brief number and email "exactly as in send_brief's receipt." It does not state any explicit exclusion (e.g. how far back statuses remain available, or what to do if the receipt is lost), which keeps it short of a 5.

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

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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by explaining that the tool does not itself take payment, that card details go only to Stripe, that booking occurs only once payment completes, and that the deposit is refundable until final agreement. These are exactly the side-effect and risk details an agent needs before promising anything to a 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?

Front-loaded with the precondition and the return value, and each sentence is readable. The final sentence on refundability and date-failure is useful for user-facing answers but sits beyond what is strictly needed to invoke the tool, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains what comes back (the quote plus a Stripe deposit link) and the downstream consequence (booking happens after payment). Combined with the refund and non-payment assurances, an agent has everything needed to call this and set user expectations 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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the 'exactly as in Nikita's email' phrasing the description repeats. The description adds no format, validation, or matching guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 and resource ('get the deposit link'), names the input anchor ('a fixed quote from Nikita... like Q-12'), and precisely describes the return ('the quote and a Stripe payment link for its 50% deposit'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_booking_link and book_call, which handle different link types and scheduling.

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 opening sentence sets a clear precondition: only for clients who already have a fixed quote with a number. It gives no explicit exclusion or named alternative ('do not use for new enquiries – use get_booking_link instead'), so the agent must infer that path from sibling names, but the context is strong.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the scope of the returned knowledge base, including pricing policy and the quotes/calls/deposits workflow, which tells the agent this is a factual lookup the studio controls.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by when to call it — the right order. The middle enumeration is a long run-on list, but every item is a real content category rather than filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by enumerating the knowledge areas, including the quote/call/deposit mechanics. With zero required parameters and full schema coverage on the one optional filter, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single enum is fully documented in the schema, including the 'leave empty for everything' default. The description never mentions the topic filter, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — the 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 and a fully enumerated resource set: what the studio makes, prices, timelines, service area, languages, work examples, and how quotes/calls/deposits work. An agent can immediately separate this from siblings such as plan_a_video or book_call, which act rather than inform.

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 triggers — 'when the user asks what the studio does or costs' — and a sequencing cue, 'before planning a video with VIDEO DEPT', which implicitly routes to plan_a_video. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusion conditions, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses the 24-hour link lifetime, 30-day upload retention, that only Nikita can open the files, the 20-file / 20 GB cap, and critically that "making the link sends nothing" — i.e., the call itself has no side effect. It does not address the non-idempotent nature (each call yields a new link), which is the one annotation gap left.

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 purpose and limits are front-loaded, and each sentence carries operational value (what it does, when to use it, how to hand off the link, lifetime, privacy, retention, no side effect). It runs a bit long as a single dense paragraph and could be broken up, but there is little wasted wording.

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 link-generation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced (a private upload page), what to do with it (give it to the user), the lifetime, capacity limits, who can access the files, and retention. An agent has everything needed to call it and explain the result 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (name, email, company, about) is already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about the parameters, though it does establish that Nikita is the recipient, which implicitly motivates the contact fields.

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 first sentence states a concrete verb and artifact: it returns a private web page where the user uploads files, for a named recipient (Nikita at VIDEO DEPT). It also scopes the accepted content types (footage, photos, logos, references, documents), which clearly separates it from sibling link tools like get_booking_link and get_deposit_link.

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?

"Use it when the user wants to send files that aren't online" gives an explicit trigger, and "Give the user the link; they open it and choose the files themselves" tells the agent how to follow through. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered and the description's remaining job is small. It does add useful behavior: the shape of the returned content and the 4-answered-question prerequisite for send_brief. It does not say what happens when video_type is omitted (0 required params) or whether the returned guidance differs per type beyond the parenthetical hint.

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, zero padding. The payload (what you get back) comes first and the follow-up action (send_brief) second, matching the order an agent needs them.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the four content blocks. What's missing is minor: the behavior when video_type is omitted and whether the answer is type-tailored wholesale or only in the noted cases.

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 100% with a documented enum, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by implying the response branches on type — the step-by-step process appears specifically for courses, video podcasts and studio setups — which tells the agent that video_type changes the output, not just a filter label.

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 concrete outcome — returning the 10 brief questions, formats, timeline and a prep checklist — and names VIDEO DEPT. as the domain. It is clearly a read/informational tool, but the verb 'Returns' is weak framing for what is effectively 'get the brief-planning kit', and it doesn't sharply distinguish itself from the other content-returning siblings like send_brand_guide or get_studio_info.

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 second sentence gives an explicit hand-off condition: once at least 4 questions are answered, use send_brief. That routes the agent correctly between planning and sending. It stops short of saying when NOT to call this (e.g., when the video is already briefed), so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes further by naming the recipient, stating the action is irreversible ("can't be taken back") and mandating a confirm-first flow ("show the user exactly what you'll send and ask first"). It does not describe what happens after sending (reply timing, failure modes), which keeps it short of a 5 given the destructive flag.

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 core action and content list, then trigger, then constraints, then safety. Every sentence carries information, but it is delivered as one dense block and the offline-file workaround sits inside the same paragraph as the confirmation rule, making it slightly harder to scan than it could be.

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 10-parameter irreversible send with no output schema, the description covers the recipient, the payload, the trigger, the offline-file fallback and the required user confirmation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely and correctly is missing.

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%, so a 3 is the floor; the description still adds real meaning about the links parameter (must be web addresses the user supplied, e.g. Google Drive/Dropbox/site) and what to do when files are not online. It adds nothing for name, email, company, colors, fonts or notes beyond the schema, so it is not a 5.

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 ("Sends Nikita a company's brand guidelines for a video") and enumerates exactly what is transmitted: brand book links, logo and font files, colors, fonts, logo rules and tone of voice. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like send_brief (the brief itself) and get_upload_link (the offline-file fallback).

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 an explicit trigger ("Use it when the user wants VIDEO DEPT. to have their brand guidelines, usually with or after a brief") and names the alternative path for the main edge case: offline files go through get_upload_link or email to nikita@videodepartment.org. Both when-to-use and the alternative routing are spelled out, not inferred.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'each call sends a new brief and cannot be taken back' plus the explicit confirmation-before-send workflow, which is genuine added guidance. It stops short of describing what the response returns or what happens if the send fails, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the action and recipient front-loaded and the safety constraint placed right before the call instruction. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact: what it does, what feeds it, and how to invoke it safely.

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 16-parameter destructive send with no output schema, the description supplies the source of data, the minimum-answer gate, and the confirmation requirement, which is enough for correct invocation. It omits what a successful send returns (e.g. confirmation or reference ID) and any failure/retry behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not encode: at least 4 of the 10 brief questions must be answered, and the brief is assembled from plan_a_video answers. It also clarifies the role of name/email as contact details Nikita replies to, tying parameters to intent.

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 ('Sends one video brief'), names the recipient (Nikita at VIDEO DEPT.) and the outcome (exact fixed quote), which no sibling tool does. It is clearly distinguishable from plan_a_video and draft_a_script, which it references as upstream steps.

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?

Explicit about when to call: after the user has seen the exact brief and contact details and agreed, and only once. It also ties the tool to a prerequisite source ('built from the user's own answers to the plan_a_video questions') and states a minimum answer threshold of 4 of 10, giving the agent a concrete readiness gate.

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