predict_retention_dropoffs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses concrete behaviors: calculates WPM, flags flat stretches over 45 seconds, and injects timestamped retention resets. This goes beyond a generic 'analyze' statement, though it does not clarify whether 'injects' means output or modifies the input.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded, and structured with a clear summary followed by parameter definitions. The Args section is justified because the schema lacks descriptions. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has moderately complex behavior and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's inputs and core logic well. Some guidance on expected output format or how 'retention resets' appear would improve completeness, but the description is adequate for invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: raw text, optional video URL/ID, and optional target duration. This is sufficient for basic invocation, though it could add more detail about how target duration affects the analysis.

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 clearly states the tool's function: analyzing video script or transcript pacing to predict drop-off points and suggest pattern interrupts. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like generate_retention_script_outline, making its purpose immediately recognizable.

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?

The description makes clear the tool is for analyzing a provided script/transcript or fetched video transcript when pacing and retention insights are needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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