Trim video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load; it earns credit for stating the original file is unchanged (non-destructive) and that output is a new MP4. However it says nothing about what happens if the output path already exists, permission/media-tool requirements, failure modes, or whether large durations are throttled.

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 tight sentences with the core action and the key units/non-destructive note front-loaded. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs more than what's here. It covers safety and units but omits the quality parameter, output-overwrite semantics, and error/return behavior, so an agent still has gaps before calling 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%, so the description must compensate; it does explain that start and duration are in seconds and that input/output are video paths. But the quality parameter (high/medium/small) is never mentioned, nor are path format expectations (absolute vs relative, resolution against ~/Videos), leaving part of the 5-parameter surface 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cut a segment from a video') plus the output artifact ('save a new MP4') and the working location (~/Videos). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from video_probe, extract_audio, or burn_subtitles, but those operations are distinct enough that an agent can route without confusion.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself ('trim') and constrained to files in ~/Videos, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no statement of what to do instead if the file is elsewhere.

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