Video Deduplicate Frames

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — that similar or failed candidates are not dropped — which matters for a tool named 'deduplicate', but it omits any mention of the identity-verification requirement, permissions, or cost.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted clauses, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than crisp conciseness.

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 exists so return values need not be explained, and the nested schema covers parameters. However, for a fairly intricate tool (SHA-256 identity check, dHash Hamming threshold, bounded frame extraction) the description leaves the agent without any sense of purpose or selection criteria.

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 100%, and the nested request object even carries its own explanation ('visual similarity cannot establish identity'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or threshold guidance beyond what is already documented, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 supplies a verb ('Compare') and a resource ('bounded source frames'), but 'bounded' is unexplained jargon and the negated clause ('without dropping similar or failed candidates') is hard to parse against the tool name's promise of deduplication. With dozens of sibling video tools (video_frame, video_frames, video_detect_scenes, video_storyboard), it does nothing to distinguish itself from them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. that a valid source hash must be supplied), and no routing to siblings such as video_frame or video_detect_scenes. The reader is left to infer everything from the name.

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