conform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the transformation semantics (CFR normalization, rotation baked into pixels) and sequencing, but says nothing about overwrite behavior on the output path, whether input is modified, codec/audio handling, or runtime cost for long footage.

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, action front-loaded and the timing constraint placed second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the tool writes a new media file from a required input/output pair. The description covers the core transformation but omits overwrite semantics, output format behavior, and failure modes that an agent would need to invoke this safely.

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. It does add meaning for fps by tying it to the 'constant frame rate' target, but input/output are left entirely to the schema names and the default of 24 fps is never surfaced in the description.

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 gives a specific verb (re-encode) and resource (phone footage) plus the two transforms applied: constant frame rate and baked-in rotation. It does not name siblings explicitly, but the phrase 'before tracking or matting' implicitly positions it relative to other tools in the workflow.

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?

'Do this before tracking or matting' gives an explicit ordering constraint that tells the agent when this tool belongs in a pipeline. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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