Retry video QA

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

Annotations are sparse (all false) and signal a non-read-only action. The description adds meaningful constraints: it does not regenerate media and cannot clear publish gates. However, it does not disclose what happens after the retry (e.g., result format or status updates).

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?

Two tightly structured sentences with no filler. The action, conditions, and limitations are all presented efficiently.

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 purpose and usage boundaries well, but because there is no output schema, the agent is left without guidance on what to expect after invoking the tool (e.g., updated job status, next steps). This is a notable gap for a state-changing operation.

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?

All three parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond what's already in the schema. It reinforces the 'current frozen video' context but doesn't introduce new semantics.

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 identifies the action (retry), the target resource (default QA evaluator), and the scope (same current frozen video). It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_video_qa by focusing specifically on re-running the evaluator.

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: use only when get_job_status recommends retryTarget qa_only, or when QA is missing, unavailable, or parse-degraded. Also states what the tool cannot do, preventing misuse.

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