analyze_video

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds context about caching (forceRefresh), supported platforms, and return structure, which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence provides essential information, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted 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?

Given the complexity (many parameters, output components, supported platforms, caching, detail levels), the description covers everything an agent needs to know. It explains return structure in text since no output schema exists, and addresses optional parameters like fields and forceRefresh.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining detail levels, threshold sensitivity, OCR language codes, and options.fields behavior. This meaningfully enhances the agent's understanding of 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 verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'video URL', listing specific outputs like transcript, key frames, metadata, etc. It differentiates from siblings by being comprehensive, whereas siblings like get_transcript or get_metadata are targeted.

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 explains when to use the tool (e.g., for full video analysis) and mentions detail levels for different needs, but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it. Usage is implied but not clearly differentiated.

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