Confirm that the file has been uploaded (via HTTP PUT to the upload_url from transcribe or summarize) and start processing. Verifies that the file is present in storage and that the job has been paid. Returns status "processing". Poll get_job_status to track progress and retrieve download URLs when done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job_id returned from a previous transcribe or summarize call. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool verifies file presence in storage and job payment, and that it returns status 'processing'. This covers key behavioral aspects, though it omits error scenarios or authentication requirements.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately providing necessary context on preconditions and next steps. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary wording.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the upload prerequisite, the verification behavior, the returned status, and how to track progress. It lacks explicit failure handling but is otherwise complete.
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?
The schema fully describes job_id as 'The job_id returned from a previous transcribe or summarize call.' The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond that, but since schema coverage is 100%, 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's function: 'Confirm that the file has been uploaded (via HTTP PUT to the upload_url from transcribe or summarize) and start processing.' This specifies a concrete verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like transcribe/summarize (which initiate jobs) and get_job_status (which polls progress).
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 provides clear context: it should be used after uploading the file via HTTP PUT to the upload_url, and it explicitly recommends polling get_job_status afterward. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the precondition and follow-up are clear enough to guide proper usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct tasks (transcribe vs. summarize vs. find_clips, extract_clip vs. extract_vertical_clip, create vs. trigger YouTube). Some overlap exists because summarize and find_clips both produce transcripts, and publish_to_youtube and trigger_youtube_publish are sequential steps that could be confused, but descriptions clarify the boundaries well.
The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (complete_upload, extract_clip, find_clips, get_job_status), with a few deviations like the bare verbs 'summarize' and 'transcribe', and 'publish_to_youtube' using a preposition. The pattern is still predictable and readable overall.
11 tools is a well-scoped number for a video/audio processing service covering transcription, summarization, clip extraction, YouTube publishing, and payment testing. Each tool has a clear place, and the count is within the ideal range.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: job creation (transcribe/summarize/find_clips), payment (mpp_smoke_test, payment challenge flows), upload (complete_upload), status polling (get_job_status), clip extraction (two variants), and YouTube publishing (create/publish/status). No critical gaps are apparent for the stated domain.
