Multi-scene film status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) already signal this is not a pure read, and the description adds real behavioral context: resume picks up where it left off, finished scenes are never resubmitted, and re-running a FAILED scene requires confirm=true. This is valuable beyond the structured fields, though it omits auth/permission requirements and cost or rate implications of resuming.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the conditional parameter behavior following. No filler; every clause carries meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what 'progress' actually returns, and it should explain how to obtain the required pipelineId. Neither is covered, and the non-read-only nature of the resume path is only partially contextualized.

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 only 33% (only confirm is documented in the schema). The description compensates for resume and confirm by explaining their semantics, but pipelineId — the sole required parameter — is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 clear purpose: reporting progress of a multi-scene film, which is distinguishable from job-level status tools by the 'multi-scene film' scope. However, it never names or contrasts with siblings like axcel_status, axcel_job_status, or axcel_sequence_list, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 explains the conditions for resume=true and confirm=true, which is useful conditional guidance. But it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling status tools (axcel_status, axcel_job_status, axcel_active_jobs) or sequence tools, leaving tool selection to inference.

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