video_trim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the key non-obvious behavior: no re-encoding, lossless, and cuts aligned to keyframes. It could still mention side effects or output behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The key information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

An output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero parameter documentation and no annotations, the description leaves important details like timecode format and output behavior unstated. The core action is clear enough for a simple trim operation, but an agent may still guess parameter conventions.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the three required parameters. 'start' is a string with no format specified, 'duration' is a number with no unit, and 'video_path' has no detail about accepted formats or locations.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Trim a video.' The qualifiers 'without re-encoding,' 'lossless,' and 'keyframe boundaries' add precision and distinguish this from sibling tools like video_thumbnail and video_to_gif.

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 implies use for fast, lossless video cuts but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when keyframe snapping might be unacceptable. It provides context but leaves the decision to inference.

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