Change a video script

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It does not say whether changes overwrite the prior script, whether they are reversible, or whether a re-render/approval step follows the change. For a mutation tool this leaves the agent without the operational context it needs.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object come first. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information provided, though it is terse to the point of under-specification.

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 zero-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should explain how the target ad is identified implicitly, what the change affects, and what happens afterward. None of that is present, so the agent can only guess at the workflow.

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 declares zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. However the description names three editable facets (script, language, captions) that are not represented as parameters anywhere in the schema, which leaves the actual modification target ambiguous even though there is nothing to document.

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 ('Change') plus the resource ('a video ad's script') and the three mutable aspects (script, language, on-screen captions), so the agent knows what the tool does. It offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings such as clone_video_ad, clone_from_script or generate_brief, which also act on video ad content.

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 guidance on when to use this versus clone_from_script, clone_video_ad or generate_brief, and no stated prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., whether an existing brief/clone is required first). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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