Analyze and retain a video for follow-up questions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and discloses key behaviors: it downloads the video, sends it to Gemini, returns a video_id, and instructs the agent to reuse that ID instead of re-downloading. It also clarifies that a user-provided public URL is treated as authorized. However, it does not mention retention duration, deletion, or local-file handling, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the trigger conditions, then give the workflow and follow-up instruction. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description gives a complete workflow for public URLs, including authorization, download, analysis, video_id return, and follow-up via ask_video. It is slightly incomplete because it never mentions the file_path local-video path from the schema, nor does it explain retention or deletion semantics beyond 'do not re-download.'

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 parameter descriptions already explain url, mode, question, and file_path. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, mostly repeating the URL authorization note already present in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 exactly what the tool does: analyze a public video URL and retain it for follow-up, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like ask_video by explicitly reserving follow-up questions for ask_video, and from download_video by noting the download is a means to analysis.

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?

It says 'Use whenever the user pastes a public video URL or asks for a visual, animation, movement, music, transcript, or shot-by-shot breakdown,' giving clear trigger conditions. It also explicitly instructs to use ask_video for every follow-up and not to re-download, thereby naming the alternative and exclusion.

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