video_repurpose

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that the call is asynchronous, that acceptance means queued/running rather than completed, and that a release checkpoint policy is applied by the worker before success. That is valuable and non-obvious. It still omits what happens on failure, how to track the job, permission requirements, and whether overwriting is destructive beyond what the one schema field says.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler, which is good. But the brevity comes at the cost of clarity: 'durable projectstore' and 'release checkpoint policy' are compressed jargon that a caller must already know, so the terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 are partly covered, and the async caveat is stated. But for a complex job-submission tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and 13% schema coverage, the description should explain at minimum what min_score gates and what start_job=false does. Neither is addressed.

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 13% across 8 parameters; only 'overwrite' has a description. The description weakly gestures at 'release checkpoint policy' (include_release_checkpoint) and 'platform clips' (platforms), but leaves min_score, start_job, output_dir, input_path, and moment_selection_record_id entirely unexplained 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?

The verb 'Submit' and the resource 'repurpose job for platform clips' are identifiable, so the agent knows this enqueues a repurposing job rather than performing an edit directly. However, jargon like 'durable projectstore' is unexplained, and the description never distinguishes this from the closely named sibling video_repurpose_plan, leaving the boundary between planning and executing ambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text whether video_repurpose_plan should be run first, or how this relates to video_export, shorts_render, or video_publish_gate. Only the implicit 'for platform clips' hints at scope.

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