mirelo_video_to_sfx_preflight

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates the tool is a read-only estimation (no generation), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or state impact beyond the basic estimation.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word serves a purpose: states action, scope, and key parameters.

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 simple preflight tool with 3 well-described parameters, the description is sufficient. However, since there is no output schema, mentioning what the estimation returns (e.g., estimated credits, time) would improve 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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning that duration_ms and num_samples are used, but does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 estimates credit cost and processing time for Video_To_SFX generation without generating. It explicitly mentions the key parameters (duration_ms, num_samples), making the purpose distinct from generate/submit siblings.

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 use before the generate step ('without generating'), but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare to sibling preflight tools like text_to_sfx_preflight or extend_audio_preflight.

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