Audit video QA

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

With no helpful annotations (all hints false), the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is advisory, produces a separate result, and does not affect publishing. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., persistence of the audit result) or whether it requires special permissions, but the provided context is meaningful and goes beyond the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every clause adds value: the advisory nature, usage restriction, and separation from default QA. No redundant or filler text.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, when to use it, and its effect. It lacks detail about the return value or any cost/time implications, but given the simplicity of the tool and strong schema coverage, it is largely complete. Slightly underperforms only because it omits what the result actually contains.

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 100% and each parameter has a clear description ('The current job ID', etc.). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed given the high schema coverage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Run Qwen3.6-Plus') and the specific resource ('current frozen video'), and distinguishes it from default QA and sibling tools like retry_video_qa by describing it as an 'advisory second evaluator'. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: 'Use only on an explicit request for another model, second opinion, or evaluator escalation.' It also clarifies what the tool does NOT do ('no publish-gate effect'), helping the agent decide between this and other QA-related tools.

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