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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: which failures are free to retry, which spend credits, how estimate_cost relates to the maximum charge, and the content-policy prerequisite. These are meaningful side-effect and cost disclosures for a destructive, credit-spending operation.

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-loads the core action, then concisely covers failure-mode branches, cost implications, and exclusions. Every sentence adds operational value without 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?

Given a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains eligibility, cost behavior, content-policy handling, and the key exclusion case.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces content_edited usage after content-policy failures, but it does not add much semantics beyond what the schema already documents for job_id, content_edited, and idempotency_key.

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 action (resume a FAILED video) and resource/job scope, and explicitly clarifies the preserved script/edits. It distinguishes the tool from related recovery or regeneration actions by focusing on same-job resume.

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?

Gives explicit eligibility (FAILED jobs), points the agent to get_job_status's next_action, covers the content-policy path with edit_scene and content_edited=true, and explicitly excludes running or stuck jobs.

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