Create a new version of a prior video job from its approved creative brief, with optional priority for regeneration.
Create a new version of a prior job from its approved creative brief.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | ||
| priority | No |
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 burden. It does not disclose whether the call is asynchronous, whether it returns a new job ID, whether it consumes credits, or what happens if the prior job has no approved brief — all critical for a job-creating mutation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficiently written, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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 job-creating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what it gets back (a job ID?), whether the call blocks, or what the 'approved brief' prerequisite means operationally.
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, and it does not. It never mentions jobId or the priority enum; the only weak signal is the phrase 'prior job', which loosely implies an ID is required.
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 verb ('Create a new version') and resource ('a prior job') are stated, but 'new version' is ambiguous — it does not clarify whether this re-renders with the same brief or accepts new parameters, and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like refine_video, generate_video, or recover_video_job.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'from its approved creative brief' hints at a precondition, but the agent is left to infer when to pick this over refine_video or generate_video.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.