Draft a new creative direction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating it overwrites current direction and that calling it twice gives different drafts. It adds valuable non-annotation context: background execution, polling via get_product until drafting is false, and that it does not spend credits. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Though longer than average, each section earns its place: purpose, destructive warning, background mechanics, and cost. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the structure is logical with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—background execution, destructive behavior, polling requirement—the description covers all necessary operational details: what to expect (drafting flag), how to poll, and user confirmation. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's explanation of the return state and polling approach.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics—it does not mention product_id or format beyond what the schema already says. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 drafts a fresh creative direction for a product's next video using product facts, images, and brand identity. It distinguishes itself from video generation by focusing on the 'direction' and implies alternation from the current one. It does not explicitly name sibling update_video_direction, but the purpose is 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 explicitly states when to use it: 'to get a first draft, or to try a different angle when the user does not like the current one.' It also warns about overwriting edits and instructs to confirm with the user before re-rolling. It provides clear context including background execution and polling, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools.

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