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.