mirelo_extend_audio_with_video_submit

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions asynchronous nature and polling, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or failure behavior. While not misleading, it could provide more transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loads the core action and return, and avoids any unnecessary words.

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?

For a submit tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the asynchronous aspect, required inputs, and model version. It could briefly mention the typical workflow (e.g., after preflight) to enhance completeness.

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 description adds little beyond reinforcing constraints like append_duration_ms range and model v1.6. It does not delve into parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it submits an asynchronous job to extend audio conditioned by a video. It specifies the return values (job_id, job_url) and distinguishes itself from siblings like mirelo_extend_audio_submit by mentioning video conditioning.

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 implies usage for submitting an extend audio with video job and directs polling via mirelo_job_status, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with preflight or generate siblings, leaving some inference required.

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