Collect clips submitted with no_wait

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

The description explains the core behavior (wait and download) and cost. Annotations indicate non-idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description aligns with these, but it doesn't detail polling behavior or error states. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage context and cost. No wasted words, front-loaded, and very 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the action (wait and download) and input parameters. It could mention the return value (downloaded file path) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context: known_media_ids are 'media ids that existed BEFORE the batch was submitted' and out_dir is a 'Subdirectory under FLOW_OUTPUT_DIR'. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: wait for new media (not in known_media_ids) and download it. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a follow-up to flow_generate_video with no_wait=true, which is unique among the sibling 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 description gives explicit when-to-use context: after submitting a parallel batch with flow_generate_video(no_wait=true). It also notes the cost implication ('Charges nothing'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the context is strong enough.

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