inspect_import_metadata

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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld annotations, the description adds real value: it explains that external changes are captured as a new baseline revision 'without changing media,' and states a hard prerequisite ('Requires the metadata-capable native plugin'). This is meaningful behavioral context the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, then behavior, then prerequisite. Little waste, though the baseline-revision sentence is dense and could be clearer.

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?

It nicely implies the return value ('use the returned revision') and covers the plugin prerequisite, which suits a read-only inspect with no output schema. The remaining gap is parameter documentation for the two required identifiers, which the description does not fill.

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% and both profileId and jobId are opaque identifiers. The description's 'your own completed video import' loosely implies jobId identifies the import, but neither parameter's meaning, format (the UUID pattern), or relationship is explained, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('fields, artwork, revision history and durable verification state of your own completed video import'), which is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like update_import_metadata. It scopes to a 'completed' import but does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling mutation tools.

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 phrase 'use the returned revision for later edits' implies this is the read step preceding edits, hinting at update_import_metadata as the follow-on. However, no alternatives are named explicitly and there is no clear when-not-to-use guidance, so usage is only implied.

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