Encode File

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the returned job ID is an unverified handoff requiring independent verification, that the project must be saved first, and that start_batch has the side effect of starting unrelated queued jobs. These are exactly the non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a queuing 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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, precondition, and the two caveats (unverified handoff, start_batch side effect). The most consequential warning, the unverified job ID, is front-loaded right after the purpose.

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 needn't be described, yet the description still flags that the returned job ID must be independently verified. Combined with the saved-project precondition and batch side effect, nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter including start_batch and remove_on_completion is already documented in the schema. The description restates the start_batch scope ('including unrelated jobs') but adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (encode) and resource (external file), and the word 'external' implicitly separates it from the sibling encode_project_item, which handles project items. It does not name that sibling, so the differentiation requires a small inference.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Requires a saved project') and warns that opting into start_batch will process the entire ready AME queue including unrelated jobs, which is genuine when-to-use guidance for that flag. It never explicitly says when to prefer this over encode_project_item or the start_batch_encode sibling, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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