Create a lineage-bound salvage derivative from a source video asset using a recipe, policy, and acceptance spec, then open a fresh review slot.
Create one lineage-bound salvage derivative and a fresh review slot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy | Yes | ||
| recipe | Yes | ||
| project_dir | Yes | ||
| source_asset_id | Yes | ||
| acceptance_spec_id | Yes | ||
| authorization_decision_ids | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (creates a derivative and a review slot) but says nothing about required permissions, the role of authorization decisions, reversibility, or side effects. Significant gap for a write operation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than tight editing, leaving the core concepts (salvage derivative, review slot) unexplained.
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 need not be described, but for a complex 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin to let an agent call it correctly.
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% across 6 parameters including a nested policy object. The description only loosely hints at lineage (source_asset_id) and a review slot; it does not explain recipe, policy, acceptance_spec_id, or authorization_decision_ids at all.
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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resources ('salvage derivative', 'review slot'), but the terminology is opaque jargon. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling rescue/review tools like video_rescue_plan, video_rescue_render, or video_review_package.
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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as video_rescue_plan/render or the review_* family. The agent is given no context for selection or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.