Re-render clip

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

Annotations only carry idempotentHint, so the description adds substantial behavior: it is async, the new video replaces the old on completion (usually under a minute), the agent should poll get_clip, and the return shape { step: render | prepare } with the meaning of 'prepare'. This is rich context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the action, the trigger conditions, the async semantics, and the sibling alternative all land within a few sentences with no wasted phrasing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return value and its variant ('prepare' vs 'render'), the async/polling model, and the replacement behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the schema itself documents the id parameter in detail ('Clip id, not a project id (from get_project or search_clips)'). The description adds no further param syntax or format, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Queue one clip for rendering again') and explicitly scopes it to a single clip, naming the plural sibling rerender_clips for multi-clip use. An agent can distinguish it from rerender_clips without opening either schema.

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 concrete triggering conditions (rerender: false edits, a failure, or an intro/outro change) and names the alternative 'For several clips of a project use rerender_clips'. When-to-use and the sibling routing are both explicit.

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