edit_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 so: it discloses the double-charge/idempotency hazard on retry after timeout, the job_id handoff to get_video, resolution and shape-preservation guarantees, and the https constraint on inputs. This is unusually strong behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and example, then constraints, then the critical retry-safety warning last. Every sentence contributes distinct information (examples, model, output shape, return value, link rule, retry hazard) with no filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover the essentials alone, and it does: what it does, return value (job_id for get_video), input constraints, output characteristics (720p, length/shape preserved), and failure handling. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete prompt examples and stating that links must be https and that server-returned links are valid, which clarifies the video_url contract; estimate_only and model remain schema-only.

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 (edit an existing video) with concrete prompt examples ('give the person sunglasses', 'make it snow') and names the backing model. This clearly separates it from generate/start/extend/motion_control siblings, which create rather than modify an input video.

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?

Provides rich contextual guidance: result preserves input length/shape at up to 720p, returns a job_id for get_video, links must be https and server-returned links work, and explicit when-not-to-act behavior on timeout (do not retry, tell the user). It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., extend_video vs edit_video) for disambiguation, so it stops short of 5.

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