wait_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses blocking behavior, the download destination, the returned URL format, and the conditional deletion of the remote job. It stops short of mentioning failure modes or side effects of non-deletion, but covers the key behavioral traits.

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 three sentences and front-loads the primary action (block, download, return). It is efficient and doesn't waste words, though the last sentence about timeout could be integrated or shortened without losing meaning.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, and the output schema exists so return values don't need explanation. The description covers the core workflow but leaves parameter semantics for materialize, delete_remote, and poll_interval unclear, which is a significant gap for such a parameterized tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. It only explains the timeout environment default; request_id, materialize, delete_remote, and poll_interval are not described. The parameter semantics are mostly absent from the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Block until a video job finishes') and identifies the resource (video job) and the resulting artifact (mp4 download with public_url). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool get_video_status by describing the blocking and download behavior.

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 clear context: this tool is used when you need to wait for a video job to complete and obtain the mp4. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_video_status for just checking status without downloading.

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