monitor_owned_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it reasonably well: it declares the tool is event-driven, that it makes no model/API calls, no seeking, no visibility emulation, and that 'status reads cached state only'. These are exactly the hidden-side-effect facts an agent needs. It stops short of describing lifecycle, whether the watcher must be running while playback continues, or cleanup expectations.

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 lines, front-loaded with purpose followed by exclusions and one operational rule; every sentence carries information. Minor fragmentation ('pause recovery.' as a dangling fragment) slightly hurts readability but nothing is wasted.

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 explained, and annotations are absent but partially offset by the explicit behavioral limits. Still missing for a stateful watcher: the enumerable actions, whether it requires an active playback session, and how it relates to control_owned_video — enough gaps that an agent could call it with a wrong action value.

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 0% and the single 'action' parameter has no enum and no description, so the description must compensate. It does so only indirectly — 'status' and 'stop' appear in prose and 'initial sample'/'estimated end' hint at start behavior, but the full action set, the default of 'start', and valid values are never confirmed.

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+resource ('Local event-driven playback watcher') plus the concrete behaviors it performs: initial sample, estimated end, pause recovery. That is far more than the name restates, but it never distinguishes itself from the crowded video siblings (control_owned_video, observe_video_question, switch_owned_video_line), so an agent still has to guess which video tool owns which job.

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 negative guidance is clear ('No model/API calls, seeking, visibility emulation, or automatic question answers') and 'stop before intentional manual pause' is a real operational rule. However, there is no explicit routing — nothing says when to pick this over control_owned_video or observe_video_question, and the action vocabulary is only implied by the words 'status' and 'stop'.

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