Diagnose a video prompt

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns revision suggestions rather than modifying anything or producing a full video prompt. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the output behavior is stated in the second sentence. Every clause adds useful information.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with one string parameter, the description is complete: it explains what the prompt is checked for and what the tool returns. Annotations cover side effects, and the lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by explicitly stating the return type.

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%, so the description must compensate. It effectively identifies the single parameter as the video prompt to be diagnosed and adds meaning by listing the diagnostic dimensions. Though it does not give format examples or detailed param guidance, the one-parameter schema makes this sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether') with a clear resource ('a video prompt') and enumerates the exact criteria evaluated: readable scene, visible motion, camera direction, lighting, and continuity controls. It also states the output type ('focused revision suggestions'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_video_prompt or plan_shots.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an existing video prompt needs quality assessment against production criteria. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the diagnostic framing makes the intended context obvious, especially alongside sibling tools with build/plan/resource focuses.

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