Video Note Create

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuine context beyond that: what artifacts are retained (source PNGs, page rasters, manifest/receipt), the fallback behavior when illustrations are missing or AV inference is used (supplied text preserved with warnings), and the caveat that deterministic checks do not equal factual/human review.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the dry-run alternative. Each sentence carries information, though the last two are dense and slightly elliptical ('Deterministic PDF checks do not establish factual or human review'), which costs a little clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers both modes, side-effect artifacts, degraded-input behavior, and a review caveat, leaving only explicit when-to-use routing to siblings 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 nested objects (request, steps, perception) are already documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely gestures at two parameters (dry-run plan, AV inference) without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Create a source-linked illustrated tutorial PDF', plus the alternate mode 'validate a read-only dry plan'. No sibling tool produces a tutorial PDF, so overlap is minimal, but the description never names a sibling or explicitly carves out its niche against the large video/media tool set.

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?

The two modes (dry-run plan validation vs actual generation) imply a workflow, and the schema default of dry_run=true reinforces that. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over video_storyboard, video_analyze, or research_document, and no prerequisites such as the required source SHA being available first.

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