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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'optional cleanup.' It does not reveal whether this is destructive, whether it releases resources, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if the queue_id is invalid. The agent is left guessing about the operation's side effects.

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?

The description is extremely short and front-loads the endpoint and primary behavioral clue. It wastes no words, though the phrase 'optional cleanup' could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description is still incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to call it. It does not say what success looks like, what 'cleanup' entails, or whether this tool is required after retrieval. The sibling tools video_retrieve and wait_for_video suggest context, but the description itself lacks enough detail.

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%, and the schema already explains that queue_id comes from video_queue / generate_video. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('cleanup') and the timing ('after retrieve'), which is more than a tautology. However, 'cleanup' is vague—it doesn't specify what resource is cleaned up or what completing a video actually does. It weakly distinguishes from video_retrieve by sequence but not from other siblings.

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?

'Optional cleanup after retrieve' implies when to use the tool, and 'optional' suggests it can be skipped, but there is no explicit guidance on when to run it versus when to skip it. No alternative tools are named, so an agent must infer usage from the sibling list and the word 'after'.

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