Set actor B-roll default

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it notes the operation is stored only, has no effect on actor-only videos, explains the policy precedence, and clarifies that segmented media generation is closed. This goes well beyond the annotations and is crucial for an agent to predict side effects.

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 moderately long but every sentence contributes meaning: the opening states purpose and cost, the middle defines policy semantics, and the end covers scope and precedence. It is logically ordered and front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 simple set operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, the policy meanings, cost implications, scope (stored only, no effect on actor-only videos), and precedence. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 50%: broll_policy has a full description in the schema, but actor_id has none. The description repeats and slightly elaborates the broll_policy enum values, and it references 'this account actor's' to give actor_id context. However, it does not explicitly define actor_id or its format, leaving half the parameters only implicitly documented.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Save this account actor's B-roll default'. It also adds a key differentiator, 'without spending credits', which separates it from potential alternatives. The policy enum is explained in detail, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context through the cost note and precedence rules ('Run override wins...'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_actor_defaults or other siblings. The absence of explicit exclusions is a minor gap, though the credit-saving angle provides practical guidance.

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