video_rescue_plan

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral details: it is a non-destructive planning step that records findings, recommendations, blocked work, and an execution estimate. However, it does not mention prerequisites or side effects.

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 compact (two sentences plus a list) and front-loads the core action. It is efficient, though the list could be integrated more cleanly.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it names what is recorded. However, the lack of parameter context reduces completeness for an agent to correctly invoke the tool among numerous siblings.

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%, yet the description omits any explanation of the parameters (policy, source, save_plan, output_dir). It mentions 'local video' implying source but fails to document format, defaults, or usage for the other parameters.

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 clearly states it analyzes a local video and returns a policy-classified rescue plan. It distinguishes from siblings like video_rescue_render by noting it never renders final media, but does not explicitly differentiate from video_restoration_plan, which is a similar planning tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_rescue_inspect or video_restoration_plan. The safety note 'Planning never changes the source or renders final media' is implied but insufficient for proper tool selection.

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