video_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: no silent media mutation, and that a supplied goal produces a reviewable cutfile without rendering. That is genuine side-effect transparency. It still omits auth/permission needs, whether routing has any side effects at all, and what 'N1' denotes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the routing purpose and the safety caveat. Tight, though 'N1' is jargon that 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 no explanation, but for a 5-parameter, annotation-free routing tool the description is far too thin: no verb vocabulary, no explanation of how params/source feed the plan, and no guidance on list_verbs discovery.

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. Only 'goal' is explained (compiles a cutfile without rendering); verb, params, source, and list_verbs are never mentioned, leaving the core input of a routing tool undocumented.

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+resource ('route a semantic intent verb to a plan') and distinguishes itself from mutating siblings via the parenthetical. But 'plan' is left undefined and nothing separates it from the many other planning tools in the sibling list (video_generative_plan, video_workflow_plan, video_timeline_edit_plan).

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 '(does not silently mutate media)' clause implies this is the non-destructive entry point, and the presence of a list_verbs parameter hints at a discovery workflow. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given, so the agent must infer the routing role.

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