Video Analyze Windows

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

Annotations already declare destructive=false and openWorld=true, so safety is partially covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: partial outcomes are retained across windows. It says nothing about budget behavior, continuation semantics, or the plan/execute default, which the schema carries instead of the description.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a tool of this complexity.

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 tool with nested required objects, an execution budget, idempotent continuation, and a default dry-run plan mode, a single abstract sentence is far too thin. The output schema excuses explaining return values, but the plan-vs-execute contract and partial-result behavior are the agent's biggest risks and go unaddressed.

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 schema richly documents request, execution_budget, job_id, dry_run, and continuation_token. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 a general verb pair ('Plan or execute') and a resource ('contiguous source windows'), but 'source windows' is domain jargon and 'retained partial outcomes' is opaque. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling video_analyze or video_batch_analyze, so an agent must open the schema to understand what it actually does.

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 guidance on when to plan (dry_run default true) versus execute, no mention of when to pass a continuation_token, and no routing to or from sibling analysis tools. The description leaves all usage conditions to the schema and inference.

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