video_rescue_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does so: it states the tool does not mutate the source or render media, and enumerates what the plan records (findings, safe repair ids, blocked work, execution estimate). It stops short of stating whether anything is written to output_dir or how policy affects the plan.

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 immediately followed by the most important constraint (no mutation/rendering). The output enumeration is a long list and partly redundant against the existing output schema, but it earns its place by conveying blocked/unavailable work.

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 output schema means return values need not be explained, and the non-mutating guarantee is covered. But for a 5-parameter tool with 20% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves policy selection, save_plan, and output_dir semantics unaddressed — a meaningful gap before invocation.

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 only 20% (only 'overwrite' is documented), so the description must compensate for policy, source, save_plan, and output_dir. It does not: the 'policy' parameter is referenced only indirectly via 'policy-classified' with no explanation of available policies, and save_plan/output_dir are never addressed.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Analyze one local video and return a policy-classified rescue plan') and distinguishes itself from the render siblings by stating it never renders final media. It does not name video_rescue_render or video_rescue_inspect directly, so the sibling split is implied rather than stated.

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?

The clause 'Planning never changes the source or renders final media' implies this is the pre-render stage, which nudges the agent toward video_rescue_render for actual output. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, leaving routing to inference.

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