burn_captions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states that a new video file is produced, implying the source and subtitle files are not modified, and gives the meaningful output default. However, it does not disclose failure behaviors, overwrite handling, or other side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence captures the entire operation, and the Args block provides parameter details without extra filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 straightforward three-parameter operation, the description covers the core behavior, parameter semantics, and output default. It could mention side effects or exceptions, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, but the description documents all three parameters with clear definitions and even notes the default behavior for output_path. This fully compensates for the schema's bare string types.

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 ('Burn'), a specific input resource (existing .srt subtitle file), and a clear outcome (producing a new video file). This clearly differentiates from siblings 'transcribe' and 'generate_srt', which handle audio-to-text and subtitle creation respectively.

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?

Implicitly indicates the tool is for existing .srt files by saying 'existing', and the sibling names make the contrast clear: use generate_srt to create subtitles, burn_captions to overlay them. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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