Venice Video Complete (cleanup)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond them: removal is reported only when Venice confirms success, and auth can be x402 wallet (no Venice account) or API key. These are valuable behavioral/auth details not carried by the annotations.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the confirmation/auth notes follow. Appropriately sized for the operation.

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 and the destructive nature makes behavioral detail important; the description covers auth and confirmation semantics well. However, it leaves both parameters completely unexplained and gives no return/error detail, so it is only adequate for a destructive two-param tool.

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% and both parameters (queue_id, model) are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions neither, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. An agent gets no semantic help on what queue_id or model must contain.

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: 'Mark a completed video as downloaded and delete server-side media.' This clearly distinguishes the cleanup action from siblings like venice_video_status and venice_video_generate. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling.

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 phrase 'a completed video' implies the tool is used after a video finishes and has been downloaded, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative such as venice_video_status for checking status first. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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