save_video

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully states the job must be finished and that the saved path is returned, but omits key behavior for a disk-writing tool: whether dest_dir is created, whether existing files are overwritten, and what errors occur.

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?

Two short sentences that front-load the action and append the return value. No wasted text.

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 return value is disclosed in the absence of an output schema, which is a plus. But for a file-writing tool with zero annotations and undocumented parameters, the definition should say more about side effects and failure modes before an agent commits to it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. "Local folder" hints at dest_dir, but the default (~/Downloads) and its optionality are never mentioned, and job_id's expected format is left entirely to the schema title.

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 object — copying a finished job's file to a local folder — which clearly separates it from metadata siblings like get_job or list_jobs. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the operation is unmistakable.

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?

"A finished job's file" implies a prerequisite (the job must be complete, so after wait_for_job), but the description never states that condition outright or says what happens if the job is still running. No alternatives or exclusions are offered.

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