video_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default stream copy vs reencode tradeoff, keyframe snapping, default output path, and URL resolution (≤720p). This fully discloses mutation and side effects, so an agent understands what happens when calling it.

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 logically structured with a one-line summary followed by a compact Args list. Every line adds value, though it could be tightened slightly by merging some details (e.g., reencode and keyframe note) without losing clarity.

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?

The description covers all necessary call semantics: input source handling, time formats, output path, reencode behavior, and defaults. The presence of an output schema means return details need not be explained. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 Args section explicitly documents all five parameters, including their types (e.g., seconds or HH:MM:SS for start/end) and default behaviors (e.g., output_path default). Schema description coverage is 0%, but the tool description compensates completely, adding meaning beyond the plain property names.

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 states a specific verb ('cut'), resource ('video'), and result ('new file'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like video_info or video_frames. There is no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 described purpose and argument details make the context of use obvious (creating clip excerpts), though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it, but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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