remix_video

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

While annotations indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it returns immediately with a new queued job, is not instantaneous, and returns a new Video object with status='queued' and progress=0. This goes far beyond what annotations convey.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a clear one-sentence summary, then a brief explanation of behavior, a Parameters bullet list, a return-value note, and a numbered workflow. Each sentence adds value, and the format makes it easier for an agent to parse the key information.

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 description is complete for a 2-parameter tool with no output schema. It covers the purpose, the lifecycle (polling, new ID), prerequisites (completed original), return status, and a step-by-step workflow. No critical information is missing for an AI agent to correctly invoke and integrate this tool.

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?

The input schema offers no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully with a Parameters section that explicitly explains each parameter: previous_video_id is the ID of the completed video to use as a base (required), and prompt is the new text prompt to guide the remix (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 first sentence states the exact purpose: 'Create a NEW video by remixing an existing completed video with a different prompt.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like create_video (new from scratch) and get_video_status (polling), and highlights the key aspect of generating a new video_id.

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 provides explicit usage context, including the prerequisite that the original video must be completed, the need to poll the new video_id via get_video_status, and a detailed 5-step workflow with example calls. It explains when to use remix_video in relation to other tools in the pipeline.

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