submit_dubbing_job

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

With no annotations to provide safety or read-only hints, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the background execution model, credit charging up front with refund on failure, and the concurrency limit. It does not mention rate limits or idempotency, but it gives a comprehensive picture of the tool's behavior beyond basic input/output. Since the description is very informative despite no annotations, score 4 is appropriate.

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 detailed without being verbose. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then explains the pipeline, billing, execution model, and parameters in a logical flow. Each sentence adds value, and the Args and Returns sections are clearly segmented brief. No unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 (background job, pricing, concurrency) and the absence of annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: input requirements, parameter semantics, background execution, billing, concurrency, and how to track the job via siblings. The output schema exists and is referenced ('Returns: JSON with job_id, run_id...'), so return values are adequately conveyed. The tool is three parameters, and the description leaves no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter details. It does this thoroughly: it explains video_url (publicly reachable, max 500 MB), target_language (dubbing language with examples), and tier (options and default). This is significantly more than the schema provides, giving clear usage semantics for each parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: submitting a fully automatic dubbing job with a video URL input and a dubbed video output. It enumerates the processing pipeline (speech recognition, speaker separation, translation, voice cloning/TTS, composition) and distinguishes it from siblings by noting the manual review absence. This is a specific verb-resource pair with comprehensive detail.

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 explicitly mentions sibling tools (get_job_status and wait_for_job) and explains when to use each: polling for background job status versus blocking until completion. It also notes the concurrency constraint (one job per account) and the HTTP 409 response for violations, which is critical for the agent to know. It provides clear context for when this tool should be invoked.

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