Platform operations (hyperframes, revideo, shorts packaging)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral on top: it does not note that the enum mixes read-only operations (catalog, info, doctor) with file-writing and render operations, does not mention that renders may be long-running or asynchronous, and does not explain the overwrite flag's side effects. Since the whole point of this tool is heterogeneous dispatched behavior, this is a meaningful gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and then the two prerequisite tools; no filler or repetition. It is arguably over-terse for a 27-operation destructive dispatcher, but on pure structure and economy it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but that is the only excuse available. For a tool with a 27-value enum spanning reads, renders, transcription, TTS, and packaging — plus an overwrite flag and destructive/open-world annotations — the description does not tell the agent enough to call it safely without chaining into two other tools first, and never warns which operations write or replace media.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, the description does add genuine meaning by telling the agent that params is an opaque argument bag whose shape is defined per-operation and must be looked up via describe_operation — that is not inferable from the anyOf object schema. But it leaves the overwrite parameter completely unaddressed and gives no per-operation argument hints, so it only partially compensates.

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 mechanism: 'Run one platform operation by name; params holds its arguments.' This clearly distinguishes it as a generic dispatcher versus the typed sibling tools, and the two follow-up tool references (list_operations, describe_operation) reinforce the dispatch model. It stops short of characterizing what the 27 operations actually span (hyperframes, revideo, shorts packaging) beyond the title.

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 provides a usable discovery workflow — call list_operations for required arguments, describe_operation for the full schema — which is real when-to-use guidance for a dispatcher. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over a typed sibling such as video_shorts, and no when-not guidance or preconditions (e.g. rendering cost, overwrite implications) are stated.

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