on_twos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core mechanism: each frame is held `hold` times at an unchanged frame rate. It says nothing about input/output formats, whether source footage is altered, or side effects, which leaves the mutation profile under-specified.

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?

A single tightly-written sentence with the mechanism front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 4-parameter tool.

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 simple transformation with no output schema to rely on, the description covers the core behavior but omits input/output expectations and edge cases (e.g. non-integer hold, fps mismatch). It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `hold` concretely ('holding each frame hold times') and hints at `fps` ('same frame rate'), but says nothing about `input`/`output` paths or accepted formats, leaving most required parameters 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?

The description conveys a specific effect (anime 'on twos' look) via frame holding, which is more than a tautology. However, it never states the operation in plain terms (e.g. 'convert a video'), relies on the niche term 'on twos', and gives no signal that separates it from siblings like extract_frames or impact_frames.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer that this is for post-processing an existing frame stream and cannot tell how it relates to the frame-source siblings.

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