Creates a new video version from a prior job using a targeted creative directive, keeping approved details unchanged outside the requested edit.
Create a new version from a prior job using a targeted creative directive while preserving unrelated approved details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | ||
| priority | No | ||
| directive | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait — unrelated approved details are preserved — but says nothing about whether this is an asynchronous job submission, whether the response is a job ID requiring get_video_job/get_video_status polling, or what happens to the original job.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the key information front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted above.
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?
This is a job-creating mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation. An agent cannot tell from the description whether the call returns immediately with a job handle, how to monitor progress, or what the priority field does — meaningful gaps for this complexity level.
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%, so the description must compensate. It maps loosely to jobId ('prior job') and directive ('creative directive'), but never explains the 3–4000 character constraint, the UUID format, or what the priority enum (LOW/NORMAL/HIGH) affects. Priority is entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 and resource: 'Create a new version from a prior job using a targeted creative directive.' The clause 'while preserving unrelated approved details' implicitly distinguishes it from regenerate_video (full regeneration) and generate_video (from scratch), though it never names those siblings directly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for targeted edits that keep other approved details intact. There is no explicit 'use this instead of regenerate_video when...' guidance and no stated prerequisites (e.g., the prior job must be completed).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.