Resume a stopped film

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

Beyond the annotations, which only declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent open-world operation, the description explains that completed work is preserved and not re-rendered, credits are reserved only for missing blocks, kept work is never charged again, and the resulting film keeps the same topic, look, voice, length, and options.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and condition, then covers preservation, credits, verification, and the alternative. It is dense but not bloated; the repeated emphasis on not charging again for kept work is slightly redundant but reinforces an important cost constraint.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the stopping condition, preserved state, what gets re-rendered, credit behavior, dryRun preflight, discovery via get_job/list_jobs, and the correct alternative for finished films. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful procedural semantics by framing dryRun as a cost-estimate step that should be run first and communicated to the user, and by clarifying that jobId refers to a film that stopped, while the schema alone mostly documents the fields.

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 (resume) and resource (a stopped film) and defines the exact situation: a video-blocks explainer or faceless-channel film made by make_explainer that stopped partway. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from fix_beat for finished films, so an agent can select it without inspecting 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?

It states precisely when to use it (a job stopped because a block would not render or after a server restart), how to identify candidates (get_job and list_jobs), a required preflight step (dryRun), and an explicit exclusion routing finished films to fix_beat instead.

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