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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: retrying preserves the original analysis choice, which an agent could not infer from schema or annotations. It does not mention credit consumption or whether a new import record is created, which openWorldHint=true suggests could matter.

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 zero waste; the eligibility condition is front-loaded immediately after the verb, and the second sentence carries only the non-obvious behavioral fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. For a one-parameter retry tool the description is nearly sufficient, though a note on credit cost or on what state the import must be in would close the last gap.

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?

There is a single parameter, import_id, with 0% schema description coverage; only its type and uuid format are documented. The description adds no meaning about what the id refers to (presumably an existing import from get_video_import), though the name is largely self-evident, so this lands at the baseline rather than below it.

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 verb (retry) and resource (video import) and scopes it to failed or canceled imports, which separates it from cancel_video_import and get_video_import. It stops short of naming a sibling tool explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

"Retry a failed or canceled import" gives an explicit precondition for use, so an agent knows this only applies to terminal-state imports rather than queued or in-progress ones. It offers no when-not guidance or alternatives (e.g., checking status via get_video_import first, or cancel_video_import for a different intent).

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