Edit video brief

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: certain fields trigger a re-render and return a new run ID, objective re-routes the composition, and publishTarget-only changes do not re-render. This goes beyond the annotations but could mention failure modes or rate limits.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides critical behavioral nuance. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for the agent to parse.

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?

The description covers the main functionality well for a mutation tool with 11 parameters and no output schema. It explains re-render behavior and distinguishes between field types. However, it could be more complete by specifying the return format for non-re-render cases or handling invalid jobId. Overall, quite comprehensive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by grouping parameters that cause re-rendering and explaining the effect of objective and publishTarget. This goes beyond the individual schema descriptions, enhancing the agent's understanding of parameter interactions.

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 'Edit an existing job's brief' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'create_video_brief' by explicitly stating 'For a brand-new video use create_video_brief'. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Edit an existing job's brief') and when-not-to-use ('For a brand-new video use create_video_brief'). It also explains behavioral differences based on which fields are changed (re-render vs no re-render), helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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