mirelo_video_to_sfx_submit

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes the asynchronous nature and return of job id/URL, but omits details like idempotency, error cases, rate limits, or side effects. The provided information is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the main purpose and required inputs. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy 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?

For an async submission tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers core behavior and required inputs. The 4 optional parameters are fully described in the schema. It could mention polling workflow, but the sibling context (e.g., mirelo_job_status) fills that gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates 'video Input_Source and duration_ms' as required but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema's property descriptions already provide.

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 states the tool submits a Video_To_SFX generation job asynchronously and returns a job id and URL for polling. It clearly identifies the verb ('submit'), resource ('Video_To_SFX'), and output, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate' (synchronous) and 'preflight' by explicitly noting the asynchronous nature.

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?

Usage context is implied through the term 'asynchronous job', which contrasts with 'generate' and 'preflight' siblings. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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