Resolve Video Auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an important safety property by promising 'only redacted auth metadata,' but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it contacts an external SJTU service, or what error/performance behavior to expect.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words and no repetition of the title. The action, scope, and output constraint are all front-loaded in one clean clause.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: input and general return type are stated. However, it omits deciding-when details and doesn't hint at the structure of the redacted metadata or failure modes, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among many video-related siblings.

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?

The schema already fully documents course_id as a Canvas course ID (100% coverage), so the description need only add context. It adds only that the tool works on 'one Canvas course,' which is marginal and does not change the baseline.

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 names a specific action ('Resolve'), a specific resource ('SJTU video auth'), and a scope ('one Canvas course'). It also states the output is 'only redacted auth metadata,' which differentiates it from sibling tools that list videos, return video info, or report video status.

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 statement about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as video_status, get_video_info, or list_course_videos, and no prerequisites are mentioned. The phrase 'for one Canvas course' only limits scope; it does not guide an agent's decision about whether this tool is the right one.

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