video_quality_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the analysis dimensions and that results come back as scores plus recommendations, and explains that warnings can be escalated to failures. It does not state that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, whether it writes artifacts, or how long/costly the analysis is — meaningful gaps for a media-processing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then a compact Args block; every line carries information. Slight redundancy between 'Returns quality scores and recommendations' and the presence of an output schema, but nothing wasteful.

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 little explanation, and the analysis dimensions are covered. Missing: whether the call is safe/non-mutating, what happens to existing files, and why `overwrite` is a parameter at all on a 'check' tool — an agent could be surprised by write behavior.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does document input_path (absolute path) and fail_on_warning (treat warnings as failures) with meaning beyond the schema, but leaves the safety-relevant `overwrite` flag entirely unexplained even though it governs whether existing media is replaced.

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 and resource ('Run visual quality checks on a video') and enumerates the analyzed dimensions — brightness, contrast, saturation, audio levels, color balance — which helps distinguish it from abstract QC siblings. However, it never names or contrasts with the many closely-named siblings (video_design_quality_check, video_metric_qc, video_qc_vision, video_qc_narrative, video_compare_quality), so an agent must 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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, despite an unusually crowded QC family in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of which check suits which stage of a pipeline.

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