happyhorse_edit_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that the tool operates asynchronously (implied by callback_url parameter), nor mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens upon successful invocation. The minimal description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic edit operation.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward edit tool, though it could benefit from including a brief note on asynchronicity without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and a sibling set with generation tools, the description is insufficient. It omits important context like the asynchronous nature (callback_url, polling), output format, and does not help the agent differentiate between editing and generation tasks effectively.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. The schema descriptions are adequate, but the tool description itself offers no additional parameter insight.

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 clearly states the verb 'Edit' and the resource 'source video', and specifies the means 'using text and optional reference images'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like happyhorse_generate_video which create new 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?

The description implies usage for editing existing videos, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generation tools) or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context for choice between siblings.

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