Submit FFmpeg processing job

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the job is private, goes through Upload-Post, and returns a pollable `job_id`, but it does not disclose quota/consumption, authentication, or failure behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three sentences with no filler, front-loading the purpose before parameter guidance and return behavior. Every sentence contributes to the agent's ability to select and invoke the tool.

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?

Covers the main choices (`input_url` vs `files`), optional command behavior, and the expected `job_id` polling flow, with full schema and output schema support. It could be stronger on the implicit requirement to supply either `input_url` or `files` and on consumption/quota context, but those are minor gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful mapping: `input_url` for a single source, `files` for multiple sources, and `full_command` for explicit editing operations, though it omits `output_filename` and partly repeats schema wording.

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 ('Submit'), a specific resource ('FFmpeg processing job'), and the mechanism ('through Upload-Post'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling polling, download, and consumption tools like get_ffmpeg_job and download_ffmpeg_result.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use `input_url` vs `files` and notes that `full_command` is optional for explicit trim/transcode/watermark/thumbnail operations. It references `get_ffmpeg_job` for polling, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions.

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