submit_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses scheduling/timezone defaults, that the call returns a job with an id, and that 'depth'/'action' purposes hand the finished file to Animation Studio, which polls done jobs itself. It omits auth/permission needs, duplicate-URL behavior, and failure modes, keeping it out of the top band.

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 core action, then broken into labeled lines for when and purpose, which is easy to scan. The purpose paragraph is dense and slightly awkward ('studio carries its fields'), but no sentence is pure filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: scheduling semantics, the returned job id, and the downstream Animation Studio handoff. The undocumented audio_only flag is the one meaningful gap.

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: it explains when, run_at format with a concrete ISO example and the no-timezone rule, max_height with an example value, purpose semantics, and the shape of the studio object (id, name, rights, window, scene). Only audio_only is left entirely undocumented.

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 — 'Add a YouTube or TikTok URL to the download queue' — including the accepted source domains. The queueing framing distinguishes it from siblings like save_video or get_job without needing to open any 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?

The three 'when' modes are spelled out with clear semantics (now jumps the queue, queue waits, schedule uses run_at), and the purpose modes are explained. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over siblings such as save_video or how to follow up with wait_for_job, but the context is otherwise clear.

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