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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, but the description adds substantial workflow context: local transcription, free manual deciding versus paid generation, building in Ignix Editor, rendering, checking, and leaving a draft. It also discloses the host shell requirement and what happens without one.

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 is front-loaded in the opening phrase, and every sentence carries useful routing or prerequisite information. The text is dense and parenthetical-heavy, but it is not padded with 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 explains what the guide covers, the workflow it enables, cost implications, prerequisites, fallback behavior, and how it relates to the two planning siblings. That is enough for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent or explain parameters that do not exist.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns a step-by-step guide for editing the user's own video or cutting clips. It distinguishes the guide from optional paid shortcut siblings plan_video_edit and plan_clips, so an agent can identify its role without opening sibling schemas.

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 explicitly says this is the first step for both jobs and that plan_video_edit and plan_clips are optional paid shortcuts for the deciding step. It also names a prerequisite: a host that can run shell commands, with fallback behavior when unavailable.

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