Inspect a video rescue plan or receipt and re-check artifact integrity to verify rescued files are valid and safe before media replacement.
Inspect a rescue plan or receipt and re-check artifact integrity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.4Input schema / properties / overwriteAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.",
+ "title": "Overwrite",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.16.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it does not disclose whether inspection is read-only, whether it can mutate artifacts, or what happens when integrity checks fail. The presence of an overwrite parameter in the schema suggests possible mutation, yet the description does not address that risk or any permission requirements.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action and target are immediately clear.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description is too sparse for a rescue-inspection tool that accepts an overwrite option and has no annotations. It omits mutation risk, prerequisites, and the relationship to the plan/render steps, leaving important context for safe invocation unstated.
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 50%: the overwrite parameter is documented in the schema, while the required receipt parameter is not described. The description partially clarifies that the receipt relates to a rescue plan or receipt, but it does not explain the expected format or how the receipt identifies the plan.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: inspect a rescue plan or receipt and re-check artifact integrity. It distinguishes the tool from video_rescue_plan and video_rescue_render by framing it as an inspection step, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as video_rescue_plan, video_rescue_render, or other inspection tools. The phrase 're-check artifact integrity' only weakly implies post-plan or post-render verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.