impact_frames

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 does not state that this is a write operation producing a new file, whether the input is preserved, whether frames are 0- or 1-indexed, or any permission/format requirements. 'mode' options add minor signal but little behavioral context.

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 with zero padding, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the mode detail. Appropriately sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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 5-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool operating on video files, the description is too thin. It omits input/output file semantics, the meaning of 'length', frame indexing, and return behavior, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.

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 0% and the schema provides only bare titles. The description explains the 'mode' values ('invert' or 'white') and ties 'frames' to impact placement, partially compensating. However, 'input', 'output', and 'length' remain completely undocumented, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 anime impact flashes') plus a scoping constraint ('at frame numbers'), so an agent understands it applies effects at given frames. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like chroma_key or composite_preview, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling effects tools (chroma_key, matte_external, composite_preview) or any prerequisites. Usage is implied only by the narrow description of the effect.

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