Validate QuokkaPix Video recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two traits: no browser required and no media processed. However, it does not state whether the call is read-only, what validation actually checks, or what the result/error contract looks like on failure, which is a meaningful gap for a validation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, and both distinguishing constraints all appear before the period, and every word earns its place.

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 a nested-object parameter and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It conveys the core purpose and the key behavioral trait, but never explains what the validation result looks like or how this relates to the generic validate_recipe and validate_result_manifest siblings — functional but thin.

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 thoroughly documents the recipe object, including the settings.tool enum and the expectedResult sub-structure. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Validate'), a specific resource ('custom Video recipe'), and adds two distinguishing constraints ('without opening a browser or processing media'), which separates it from media-processing tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the generic sibling validate_recipe, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 phrasing implies a non-destructive validation context — no browser and no media processing — which is a useful usage signal. But it never names alternatives (validate_recipe, validate_video_result_manifest, validate_result_manifest) nor states when validation should be preferred over processing, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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