workflowmoves_clean_epk_video_links

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the call is asynchronous ("returns a retained background job"), that its base effect is write, and that inference/download effects may be conditionally inferred and should be checked via danceflow_component. That is genuine added behavioral context; it does not, however, say whether the removal is reversible or what happens to the retained evidence.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the effect and follow-up routing are stated compactly. The telegraphic "Base effect flags: write" phrasing is slightly terse but still readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be described, and the async job model is covered. However, for a mutation tool with nested permissions and three undocumented path arguments, the description leaves the agent unsure how to construct the required arguments, which is a meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 50%: the permissions object is documented, but the three required nested paths (source, output, record) have no descriptions anywhere. The description never explains what these paths point to (source video set? output manifest? edit record?), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the parameters an agent must actually supply.

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?

"Remove redundant local video links and retain exact edit evidence" states a specific verb (remove) plus resource (local video links) and a secondary outcome (edit evidence). It is clearly distinguishable from audit/inventory siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with workflowmoves_audit_epk_evidence or workflowmoves_integrate_epk_media.

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?

Guidance is follow-up oriented: poll danceflow_job_status after the call and inspect danceflow_component for conditional effects. There is no statement of preconditions, when to prefer this over the audit or integrate siblings, or what input conditions make it appropriate.

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