ffv2_submit

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's repetition of 'idempotent' adds little. However, it does add useful behavioral context by warning that a worker must be started separately, which explains the asynchronous dependency not captured in annotations.

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 only two short sentences and is front-loaded with the core action and the worker caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity leaves important details unstated.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, including a required nested spec object with many fields and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still fails to explain what the spec must contain or how submission interacts with the other ffv2 tools.

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% and the description gives no meaning for either top-level parameter. It does not explain the required spec object, its many nested fields, or the role of idempotency_key, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 description says it enqueues an idempotent media job, which is a specific verb and resource, but it does not clarify what kind of media operation or how it differs from sibling tools such as ffv2_plan or ffv2_worker_start. An agent can infer submission to a queue but not the scope of the submitted work.

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 only usage-relevant statement is that the worker must be started separately, which is helpful context but not a when-to-use vs alternative rule. It never says when to call ffv2_submit instead of ffv2_plan, ffv2_worker_start, or ffv2_job_status.

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