stitch_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals key behavioral traits: hard cuts (no transitions) and normalization to the first clip's resolution/fps for clean concatenation. However, it does not mention audio handling or return behavior, leaving a small gap.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function and inputs, the second provides behavioral details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no annotations and a moderately complex operation, the description covers essential points: concatenation, ordering, normalization, and usage context. It is missing details about audio handling, but for a simple stitch tool, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining that 'videos' accepts local paths or URLs and that order matters. It also hints that 'output_path' produces an MP4. It does not fully elaborate on output_path, but enough meaning is added for usage.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Concatenate >= 2 clips (local paths or URLs, in order) into one MP4.' This specific verb and resource, combined with the requirement of multiple clips, distinguishes it from sibling tools like trim_video or retime_video that operate on single clips.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this for the final assembly of a multi-clip ad.' It also gives a clear exclusion: 'do not shell out to ffmpeg concat yourself,' preventing misuse and reinforcing that this is the designated tool for concatenation.

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