video_estimate_operation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does state this is a dry-run and local, not cloud pricing, which signals non-execution. It omits whether the operation is actually executed, authorization needs, accuracy caveats, rate limits, or what the cost unit represents. Partial transparency.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key qualifiers (dry-run, local, not cloud pricing) are placed early. It is efficient, though its terseness may be under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 three-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the one-sentence description is missing critical parameter semantics and behavioral details. Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but an agent still lacks enough 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% for three parameters, so the description must compensate; it mentions no parameter names, units, or allowed values. 'operation', 'duration_seconds', and 'complexity' are left completely unexplained in both schema and description, making correct invocation difficult.

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 the tool's function as a dry-run local wall-time/cost-unit estimate and explicitly excludes cloud pricing, which is a meaningful scope boundary. However, it never names the video operation resource or differentiates from siblings like video_cost_ledger or video_benchmark_run beyond the pricing note. Clear purpose but incomplete sibling differentiation.

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 parenthetical 'not cloud pricing' gives a when-not boundary, implying use for local dry-run estimates rather than cloud cost calculations. It does not state when to choose this over video_cost_ledger, video_benchmark_run, or other estimate/planning tools, nor any prerequisites. Implied usage only.

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