video_publish_validate

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 one real behavioral trait: solve=True has a side effect (emitting an N5 cutfile). But for a validation tool with 8 parameters there is no word on what is checked, what a failure looks like, or whether it is read-only/safe, so the disclosure is partial.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler and the primary action first. It is efficient, though the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than tightness.

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 explained, but for an 8-parameter, 4-required validation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what a valid publish spec requires or how this differs from its validate/publish siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate for 8 undocumented parameters, and it only explains one of them (solve, including its cutfile side effect). Required fields like platform, duration_seconds, height, width, and options like source, captions, and container get no explanation anywhere.

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 ('Validate a publish spec'), which an agent can separate from the many other *validate tools such as video_cutfile_validate or video_timeline_ir_validate. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling video_publish_gate, and 'publish spec' is never defined.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus video_publish_gate, video_cutfile_validate, or video_workflow_validate. The only usage hint is the conditional 'solve=True also emits a cutfile', which is about a parameter, not about selecting the tool.

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