video_review_decide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one important side effect, that accept plus EDL approval can render, but it does not explain permissions, reversibility, what happens on reject or revise, or what the cryptic 'N4' reference means.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and avoids wasted words. The second sentence is cryptic but still concise, so structure is generally efficient.

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?

For a seven-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It leaves required parameter semantics and most behavioral context undocumented, even though an output schema exists and need not be explained.

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% for seven parameters, so the description must compensate. It hints at decision values (accept/reject/revise) and the EDL/approval fields, but it does not explain review_run, reason, input_path, output_path, or the nested object structure.

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 states a specific verb and resource: record a human accept/reject/revise decision. This clearly conveys the tool's core purpose, though it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as video_review_decision or video_review_ui.

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 when the tool is used by naming the decision types and adding that accept plus EDL approval can trigger rendering. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or 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.