Re-render clip

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint, so the description carries real weight and does: async semantics, that the old video is replaced on completion, typical latency, the follow-up poll via get_clip, and the two-step return shape. The 'prepare' branch is explained as a clip that never received its AI title, which is non-obvious behavior an agent could otherwise misread.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then behavior, then the sibling hand-off. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the nested parenthetical defining 'prepare' is the one spot that costs readability for its value.

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, yet the description documents the return object and the meaning of each field, plus the async polling path and the mutation's effect on prior output. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call 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%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already states the clip-vs-project-id distinction. The description reinforces the clip scope but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema; a 4 reflects that the surrounding context (where the id comes from, what the call does with it) is made actionable.

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') plus the trigger conditions, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the plural sibling rerender_clips. An agent can route between the two 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?

Names the exact situations that call for it (rerender:false edits, a failure, an intro/outro change) and explicitly routes multi-clip work to rerender_clips. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both present.

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