Twelvelabs Call

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing single-HTTP-request semantics with no retries or polling, the job_id receipt-reuse path that avoids resending, the fact that dry plans touch only fenced local media, and the existence of separate media-disclosure and deletion/cancellation grants. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling a destructive, open-world 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?

Sentences are front-loaded and each covers a distinct concern: scope, default-disabled state, dry-run purity, execution authorization, one-request/no-retry behavior, receipt reuse, provider observations. It is slightly long at seven sentences, but none is 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?

For a meta-tool spanning 27 operations with a 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies the safety envelope (grants, dry-run, no polling) that the structured fields cannot. It stops short of explaining per-operation prerequisites, which is a modest gap given the breadth.

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 top-level surface is a single `request` object, so the schema carries the field-level semantics and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds real meaning only for a few fields (job_id receipt reuse, dry_run isolation, the authorization grants), leaving the bulk of `parameters` undocumented in prose.

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 verb pair ("Plan or perform") and a bounded resource domain ("TwelveLabs asset/index/search/embed/entity/analysis operation"), so the agent knows this is the single-operation TwelveLabs REST wrapper. It does not, however, contrast itself against near-neighbours like video_analyze or media_perceive, so sibling differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

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 supplies clear gating conditions for plan-versus-execute ("Disabled by default", "Dry plans... make no DNS, provider or database calls", "Execution requires explicit BYOK/network authority") but gives no guidance on choosing among the 27 operations or on when to prefer a sibling tool. Usage is implied by the operation enum rather than explained.

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