Estimate the credit cost of a CraftStory 2.0 video

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description goes beyond them by confirming no job is created and disclosing the actual billing behavior: per-second rates by resolution, the lipsync_mode=empty discount, rounding up per job, and the flat MiniMax H3 rate. That is real behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't say whether costs are estimated tolerance or exact.

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 core purpose, then the rate table in two dense sentences. Telegraphic phrasing ('2.2 (2 with lipsync_mode=empty)') is compact but slightly cryptic, and the MiniMax sentence sits oddly in a CraftStory-scoped definition.

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 no output schema, the description does identify the return unit (credits, rounded up per job), which is the key completeness need for a cost-estimate tool. However it omits how audio_clip_ids drive duration, whether errors occur on invalid clips, and leaves the enum values unresolved, so an agent can call it but not fully predict inputs.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially compensates by mapping rate tiers to 480p/720p and describing the effect of lipsync_mode=empty, but audio_clip_ids is never explained (duration source? billing per clip?), and the enum values 480_832/832_480 and sync_so/craftstory are not mapped to their human-readable meanings.

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+resource ('Credits a craftstory-2 job would cost') and explicitly scopes it as a dry run ('without creating anything'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_craftstory2_video and create_minimax_h3_video.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'without creating anything' — an agent can infer this is a pre-flight estimate before calling a create tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no stated alternatives, and it oddly mixes MiniMax H3 pricing into a tool whose title scopes it to CraftStory 2.0.

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