Job status

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the tool performs a side effect (provider status refresh) for video jobs, which fits the readOnlyHint=false declaration and would not be obvious from the schema. It also previews the return payload (status, asset id, download URL), which is valuable since no output schema exists. Missing are polling cadence, whether image jobs are stale without the refresh, and any rate-limit or auth notes.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with purpose followed by the key operational caveat and the return shape. Every sentence adds information and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 single-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the important video-refresh side effect, and the return contents. The remaining gap is the provenance of jobId and how often to poll, which an agent needs to call this reliably in a loop.

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?

There is one parameter (jobId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never says where jobId comes from (generate_image/generate_video/list_jobs) or what format it takes, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Check a generation job") and scopes it to image or video jobs, which implicitly separates it from the music, render, and editor-status siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Call it to advance a processing job" gives an actionable operating context, and the note that only video jobs trigger the provider refresh tells the agent when polling is productive. It does not name alternatives (e.g. vivid_list_jobs for discovery, vivid_music_status or vivid_render_status for other job kinds) or state any when-not-to-use condition.

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