Make a series of faceless short videos (Content Factory)

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

Annotations only cover safety (not read-only, open world, non-idempotent, non-destructive); the description goes far beyond by disclosing the cost model (free quote, small planning charge, real spend on confirm), the asynchronous job-id return plus get_job polling, and the never-copy-words-or-characters constraint on reference videos. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry for a paid, async, multi-step mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's identity and the step ordering, and every clause is substantive; the heavy capitalization and dense parentheticals make it harder to scan than needed, but little is genuinely wasted.

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 16 parameters, a nested `schedule` object, and no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (a quote, a plan with titles and style card, or job ids to poll) and how scheduling maps one post per finished episode. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, yet the description still adds material meaning: default captions follow whether the reference burns its own words, reference governs look/pacing/hook but never text or characters, duration and episode bounds with defaults, and the plan-reuse relationship between planOnly and `plan`. This goes well past restating schema fields.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('turn ONE topic into a SERIES of faceless short videos') plus the key differentiator from siblings: narration over pictures, no presenter, optional style transfer from a reference. An agent can distinguish it from make_explainer or generate_video without opening either schema.

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 gives an explicit ordered workflow ('THREE STEPS, ALWAYS IN THIS ORDER'), names when each mode applies (free quote, planOnly, confirm), and routes to named alternatives for finding references (search_tiktok / search_instagram / search_youtube). It also documents a second, separate entry condition: passing `jobIds` plus `schedule` for the scheduling path.

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