Verify exported media

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations: full verification is asynchronous via job_id, quick decoding takes about one second, spherical checks require metadata, and validity/change does not prove edits or Studio authorship. It does not cover failure behavior or permissions, but the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence contributing a distinct constraint: stable output checks, spherical metadata requirements, quick/full behavior, and the authorship caveat. No sentence is filler, though the telegraphic style trades some clarity for brevity.

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 complex 15-parameter verification tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It explains high-level mode and async behavior but omits most parameter semantics, expected outputs, and what the optional baseline/settings checks actually do.

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?

With 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry most parameter meaning. It only loosely references mode, baseline, settings, and projection, and does not explain min_bytes, timeouts, stable_for_ms, expected dimensions, codec, audio, or duration tolerance.

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 says 'Check stable output' and mentions baseline/settings/projection, spherical metadata, and decodes, which collectively imply media verification. However, it never clearly states that it verifies an exported media file at a path, leaving the core purpose somewhat vague despite helpful surrounding clues.

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?

It distinguishes quick mode as a one-second decode from full mode returning a job_id, and says to poll status for completion, which gives useful usage context. It still lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus siblings like studio_verification_status or studio_media_info, and does not say 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.