video_record_motion_acceptance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the record is an unverified caller attestation, that system-authenticated viewing evidence does not exist, that attestation_verified_by_system remains false, and that the returned receipt is nested to preserve its content hash.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds constraints without filler. Every sentence adds relevant context, though the paragraph could be slightly tighter.

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 tool is complex: 8 required parameters, nested objects, and an output schema. The description covers the behavioral contract and trust limitations well, and the output schema means return values need not be explained. However, given 0% schema description coverage, it leaves significant parameter semantics unexplained.

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 8 required parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions exact source/report hashes, complete watched intervals, and flagged interval dispositions, but it omits reviewer_id, input_path, report, verdict, and any format or structure details for the nested objects.

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 states a specific verb and resource: recording an authorized human caller's explicit whole-film motion attestation. It also distinguishes the action from model proof and release approval, which separates it from siblings like video_acceptance_eval and video_verdict.

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?

It clearly states that explicit human review is required and that agents must not invent viewing or act as the reviewer. It also clarifies that this is not model proof or release approval, though it does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead.

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