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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world action, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the input constraint about user-audio videos, but the parenthetical '(a failed video didn't count)' is vague about quota/credit consequences, and there is no statement that each retry produces a new video (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded, but the phrasing is awkward and the '(a failed video didn't count)' aside is ambiguous, while the second sentence repeats itself ('can't be retried' / 'aren't offered anymore').

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 one-parameter, non-destructive action with annotations present, the description covers the main eligibility rule. It omits what the agent should expect on success (a new video being created/queued) and how to recover from an ineligible ID, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 single video_id parameter has zero schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It does imply the valid domain (the ID must refer to a failed, non-user-audio video), but it never says where to obtain the ID (list_videos) or what happens if the ID is invalid.

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 names a specific action and resource ('makes a failed video again') and specifies what is preserved: idea, facts, style and voice. That distinguishes it well from make_video and get_video, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It clearly gates usage on the video being failed and gives an explicit exclusion: videos made on the user's audio cannot be retried and are no longer offered. There is no guidance about what to do instead when the video isn't failed (e.g. make_video), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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