katto_dub_clip

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description reinforces this with 'Each call starts a new render (not idempotent)' and adds genuinely new context: subscription requirement and quota exemption. It does not describe failure modes or what happens to the prior render, which would push it higher.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and language scope, then subscription/quota constraints, then the required follow-up call. No filler; every sentence carries operational information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return value ('Returns a rerender_id') and the polling step needed to consume it, which covers the agent's main needs. It leaves out failure/retry behavior and how this differs from the sibling rerender 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 67% and the description adds little beyond confirming the language set (matching the enum) and the 0-based nature of the clip index. It never clarifies whether 'id' is the parent job id or the clip id, which is the main ambiguity in the required parameters.

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 ('Re-render one finished clip dubbed into ... 19 languages') and enumerates the target languages, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling katto_rerender_clip, which an agent could easily confuse with this dubbing variant.

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?

Gives clear preconditions ('Creator feature (requires an active subscription)', 'does NOT use your monthly video quota') and post-call routing ('poll katto_get_rerender'). It stops short of stating when to prefer this over katto_rerender_clip, but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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