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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds zero behavioral context beyond that — it never mentions that this is an asynchronous job (implied by callback_id) or how idempotency_key affects retries, which the annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

It is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structure to evaluate — a four-character fragment cannot be front-loaded when nothing follows it.

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 7-parameter asynchronous video tool with no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing explains the async callback flow, the meaning of idempotency_key, valid enhancement methods, resolution options, or any duration limits.

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 schema is nominally the source of truth and the baseline is 3. However the schema descriptions are one-word labels ("增强方法", "输出分辨率") with no allowed values, and the tool description adds nothing to compensate — particularly for method and resolution, where no enum exists.

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?

"视频增强" merely restates the tool name (video_enhance_v2) with no additional specificity about what kind of enhancement, what input it accepts, or what it produces. It is a tautology rather than a description, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like video_upscale, video_edit, or image_enhance.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With roughly 30 sibling tools including video_upscale and video_edit, the absence of any routing condition leaves the agent to guess.

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