video_ingest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one trait – the source bytes are 'immutable' – but omits whether bytes are copied or moved, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, and what happens with usage-rights metadata on re-ingest.

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 wasted words, which is structurally clean. But for a 5-parameter ingest tool the brevity tips into under-specification rather than disciplined 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?

The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain returns. However, a mutation-style tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage is not adequately described by one sentence; key inputs and post-ingest behavior remain unspecified.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It says nothing about project_dir, source_path, lineage, usage_rights_status, or usage_rights_evidence_ref, leaving every parameter undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb ('Ingest') and resource ('immutable source bytes') with a destination ('existing or new private project'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish this from likely siblings such as video_project_create or video_init_project, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'existing or new private project' hints that it may also create a project, but this is not framed as a selection condition against the many project/init siblings.

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