analyze_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool immediately returns a persistent task ID, implying asynchronous processing, but it does not disclose validation behavior, error handling, authentication needs, or what happens after submission. This is insufficient for a tool that kick-starts a multi-step workflow.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action (submit a video sharing link) and the key output (persistent task ID). Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and is part of an async workflow with sibling tools. The description only covers the basic submission action and does not explain parameter semantics, the async flow, or how the returned task ID connects to the sibling tools. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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?

The input schema has three parameters (url, profile, provider) with zero description coverage. The description only paraphrases url as 'video sharing link' and says nothing about profile or provider, leaving their meaning and acceptable values completely unexplained. This is a critical gap for a tool with low schema coverage.

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 the tool submits a video sharing link and returns a persistent task ID, distinguishing it from the sibling status/result retrieval tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives within the description, so it's slightly less clear than a fully self-contained purpose statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (get_analysis_status, get_analysis_result) or the typical async workflow (submit, then poll status, then fetch result). The mention of a persistent task ID hints at async usage, but no explicit context is given.

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