filmora_feature_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by stating this is guidance, not an executed edit, and that availability is not guaranteed. That sets expectations about the tool's advisory nature and reliability limits.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The caveat sentence earns its place by preventing misuse, though the parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not describe the shape of the returned 'UI route' an agent would receive. Combined with the fully undocumented parameter, this leaves gaps, though for a simple single-purpose lookup tool the description is minimally adequate.

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?

There is one parameter ('feature') with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides only a title. The description does not explain what values 'feature' accepts, its format, or valid examples. With a single undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Get a UI route for an advanced feature.' An agent can tell this returns navigational guidance rather than performing actions, distinguishing it from action tools like filmora_edit or filmora_click. The term 'advanced feature' is somewhat generic and the description doesn't explicitly name which siblings it overlaps with (e.g. filmora_commands, filmora_capabilities).

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 ('Guidance is not an executed edit or guaranteed availability') implies usage context by clarifying this is informational only, which helps an agent avoid mistaking it for an edit. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings.

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