recover_video_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important non-obvious behavior: it reattaches to the open Flow tab, retrieves an already-paid clip, removes the watermark, completes the job, and avoids new credit spend. It does not cover authentication/session prerequisites beyond the open tab, failure modes, idempotency, or what is returned after recovery.

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 short, front-loaded with the recovery purpose, and every sentence contributes useful information. It efficiently covers the triggering condition, the internal actions, and the no-credit guarantee.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter and its allowed states, and the description explains the core recovery behavior. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns or what happens on partial failure; 'completes the job' is not enough for an agent to understand the result.

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 the single jobId parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the relevant job states. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific operation and resource: recovering a video job whose generation finished but download failed or was interrupted. It also distinguishes the action from a new generation by stating that it never submits a new generation and spends no additional credits.

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 gives a clear triggering condition: use this when a Flow generation has finished but the download failed or was interrupted. The schema further constrains jobId to DOWNLOAD_FAILED, RECOVERY_REQUIRED, GENERATED, or RETRIEVING states. It does not explicitly name regenerate_video or other siblings as alternatives, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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