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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the window follows film changes automatically, the answer reports what the film is, what remains to complete, and the editor's address, and hosts without windows see only the verbal response. These details help the agent understand the tool's side effects and output shape.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and includes essential usage constraints in subsequent sentences. It is somewhat long and parentheses-heavy, but every sentence carries useful information; a minor trim could improve readability.

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 full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explicitly describes what the answer contains in words, which compensates for the missing output schema and covers the host-without-windows case.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter (the film id, prj_…, pointing to list_films). The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: show the film in Cutscene's window. It clearly distinguishes the tool from preview_film, and the mention of 'the assistant's app draws windows' clarifies the medium. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_film or preview_film.

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 when to call (once the film is first made and after a round of changes), when not to call (never after each edit_film), and why (an open window follows changes by itself). It also names an alternative for a different need: preview_film for viewing the film yourself.

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