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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the saved video is preserved, and credits_left in the response reports the balance. "Cost: Free: no credits" clarifies the billing consequence, though the phrasing is terse enough to be ambiguous.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and identifiers, then effect, then cost. No filler, and every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values, and mentioning credits_left is a bonus. The notable gap is the unstated cardinality rule for a tool whose three parameters are all optional, plus no mention of what happens to partial in-progress work.

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%, so the schema already describes each id, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only a little beyond it, notably labeling video_id as "an edit" job rather than merely "the video". It does not clarify the one-of-three selection constraint that the schema leaves unstated via 0 required fields.

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 verb ("Stops") and enumerates the three job kinds it targets, tying each to its identifier. An agent can tell this cancels in-flight jobs rather than deleting saved work. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling cancel_post, so it falls short of a 5.

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 mapping of import_id/video_id/style_id to job types implicitly tells the agent which id to supply for which situation. However, with 0 required parameters it never states that exactly one identifier must be chosen, nor does it give any exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance.

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