ingest_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the extraction pipeline (ffprobe, 16kHz wav, keyframes, 360p proxy), the output contract (asset_id, never video bytes), security hardening (SSRF, size cap), and the yt-dlp behavior. This is unusually transparent and would let an agent predict side effects accurately.

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 yet information-dense: a clear opening sentence, followed by constraints, extraction behavior, output contract, and pipeline ordering. Every sentence adds necessary operational detail that the schema and annotations do not provide, without fluff.

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 tool with no annotations, this covers nearly everything needed to call it correctly: accepted inputs, rejected inputs, output format, next step, and processing behavior. The only notable gaps are the exact meaning of max_seconds and the vague 'size-capped' threshold, which prevent a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains the source parameter (filesystem path or HTTPS URL plus security exclusions), but says nothing about max_seconds, leaving that parameter's meaning and limits entirely to the schema's name and default.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Ingest a local video path or public http(s) URL.' It also clarifies what the tool returns (an asset_id) and how it fits into the workflow, making it easy to distinguish from the downstream analyze_video_music sibling.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first' and then points to analyze_video_music as the next step, giving an agent clear pipeline guidance. It also provides firm input constraints and exclusions: rejects file://, loopback, and private IPs for SSRF reasons, and disables yt-dlp unless an environment variable is set.

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