Clone a video ad

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals a human-in-the-loop step ("You review the script first"), which implies a draft-then-approve flow, but it omits what the call actually produces (job id, script artifact), whether an approval step is required, and any auth or rate-limit notes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key workflow constraint. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 multi-step clone-and-review pipeline with no output schema and no documented parameters, the description should connect to the surrounding lifecycle tools (approve_video_clone, revise_video_brief, check_video_status, launch_cloned_ad). It gestures at the review step but leaves the agent guessing about what is returned and what the next call should be.

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 is an open object with zero declared properties (additionalProperties: true), so there is no schema-level parameter documentation to lean on. The description compensates by naming the kinds of source input expected (competitor ad, reel, TikTok, own video), which is meaningful guidance for an otherwise free-form input, though it does not specify format (URL vs. asset id).

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 (write/clone) and resource (video ad) and enumerates acceptable source material (competitor ad, reel, TikTok, own video). It is clear on its own, but does not differentiate itself from close siblings like clone_tiktok_ad, clone_ad, or clone_from_concept, whose boundaries are left ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus the many clone_* alternatives (clone_ad, clone_tiktok_ad, clone_from_script, clone_from_concept). The only process hint is "You review the script first," which implies a workflow but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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