video_rescue_render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does substantial work: it declares fail-closed behavior across stale inputs, capabilities, policy, resume state, cancellation, and verification, plus that failed output is never promoted. It still omits permission requirements and the cost/duration profile of a render, keeping it below 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the invariant and fail-closed clauses; no filler sentences. The line-wrapped trailing-period formatting is slightly awkward but content is dense and relevant.

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 needn't be explained, and the failure modes are well covered. But for a seven-parameter mutation tool, the description leaves the plan format, receipts, overwrite behavior, and intermediate retention unaddressed, which is thin given the complexity.

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 14% (one of seven params documented), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for approved_repair_ids (must reference the immutable plan) and gestures at resume_receipt/cancel_file via 'resume state' and 'cancellation', but the required 'plan' param, save_receipt, and keep_intermediates remain unexplained.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Render') with a specific resource ('approved safe repairs from a reviewed rescue plan'), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling video_rescue_plan and video_rescue_inspect by the 'render' phase. It never explicitly names those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Approval ids must name safe repairs in this exact immutable plan' conveys the prerequisite state (a reviewed, immutable plan) needed before calling. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to video_rescue_plan/video_rescue_inspect as the alternatives to route to.

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