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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the operation being a processing pass. It doesn't say whether the job is synchronous or asynchronous, whether it consumes credits, whether it mutates the existing media or produces a new asset, or what model-parameter behavior to expect from extraParams.

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 operation front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is somewhat of a feature dump that duplicates the schema, keeping it just short of maximum efficiency.

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?

This is a complex tool: 14 parameters, a free-form nested extraParams object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description supplies none of the missing context an agent needs to invoke it confidently, such as job lifecycle, result handling, or how the enhancement pass relates to the resulting media version.

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 14 parameters are already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description's feature list (upscale, HDR, output codec, bit depth, scale factor, arbitrary model parameters) largely restates schema fields rather than adding format, default, or interaction semantics beyond them.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Run a video editor enhancement pass on a workspace video media item') and enumerates the enhancement capabilities it covers. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like upscale_video, convert_video_to_hdr, and expand_video, which the listed capabilities directly overlap with.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance. The second sentence reads as a capability list ('Supports upscale, HDR, output codec...') rather than a condition that selects this tool over upscale_video or convert_video_to_hdr, so the agent must infer when this composite pass is appropriate.

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