Create video brief

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns immediately while rendering is asynchronous, and recommends polling 'get_job_status' until 'draft_ready'. It also states authentication requirements. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description adds value beyond the annotations' limited readOnly/destructive hints.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, explaining the async behavior and polling, and providing the alternative tool. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, 5 required, no output schema), the description adequately covers the async flow and authentication but does not describe the return format in detail (only mentions 'job and run IDs'). A fuller description of the response structure would improve completeness.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add additional semantics for parameters beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description fulfills minimal expectations but does not enhance understanding of parameter usage or interrelations.

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 'Create a new video job from a structured brief and trigger the render pipeline.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'edit_video_brief' by explicitly saying to use that for changes, making the purpose specific and distinct.

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 provides guidance on when to use this tool (creating a new job) versus 'edit_video_brief' for changes, and mentions the requirement for write-scope authentication. However, it does not elaborate on scenarios where this tool should not be used or compare to other siblings like 'get_job_status' for polling, which is referenced but not detailed.

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