video_rescue_render

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the renderer 'fails closed on stale inputs, capabilities, policy, resume state, cancellation, or verification failure and never promotes failed output,' providing detailed failure behavior.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence lists failure conditions efficiently, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 presence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description covers the tool's main action, prerequisites, and failure modes. However, it omits details about how parameters like cancel_file and resume_receipt affect behavior, which may be important for complex renders.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'approved_repair_ids' and 'plan' by explaining their roles (e.g., 'Approval ids must name safe repairs in this exact immutable plan'), but does not explain the remaining four parameters (cancel_file, save_receipt, resume_receipt, keep_intermediates).

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('approved safe repairs from a reviewed rescue plan'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like video_rescue_plan (which creates plans) and video_rescue_inspect (which inspects) by focusing on the rendering step.

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 description implies usage after a rescue plan is reviewed and repairs are approved, stating 'Approval ids must name safe repairs in this exact immutable plan.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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