index_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses idempotency semantics (no-op on repeat, force overrides), a cost trade-off (captions=true is slower), and the shape of the result. It does not mention permission requirements, whether the call is long-running/blocking, or failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (what it indexes, then the no-op/force rule) are front-loaded before the secondary captions caveat and the return summary.

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?

For a mutation-style tool with no annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what gets created, when nothing happens, and the cost of an option. Since an output schema exists, restating return fields is optional; the remaining gap is operational context such as expected runtime or permissions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two non-obvious flags: force's override-of-idempotency behavior and captions' effect plus slowdown. The required 'path' parameter is left with no format guidance (accepted file types, absolute vs relative), so coverage is incomplete rather than absent.

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 (Index) and resource (video file) and enumerates the artifacts produced: shots, transcript, audio/visual events, CLIP embeddings. That scope is specific enough to separate it from siblings like overview, query, or peek, which operate on already-indexed videos.

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?

Clearly establishes the context of use: indexing is the step that populates the index, and re-running it is a no-op unless force=true, which tells the agent when to set that flag. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating prerequisites (e.g., that query/get_segment depend on this having run).

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