video_dub_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about whether the tool reads, writes, destroys, requires auth, or has side effects; 'plan' alone is too vague.

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?

It is only one sentence, but it is cryptic and under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The purpose is not front-loaded, and the sentence about sound_voice_batch does not earn its place in this tool's description.

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 3-parameter planning tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. Even though an output schema exists, the description omits basic context about what the plan contains and how to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and the description does not explain voice, target_lang, or caption_path. 'ES-first' loosely hints at the default target_lang, but no parameter meaning is added beyond the bare 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?

The description says 'ES-first plan' but never states what is being planned or what the tool actually does. It vaguely implies Spanish-first dubbing planning, but an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like video_audiogram_plan or video_workflow_plan without opening the schema.

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 mentions an alternative (sound_voice_batch) but does not say when to use video_dub_plan versus that or any other sibling. The directive to use sound_voice_batch is confusing and not tied to a selection condition.

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