glitch_datamoshing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real value by explaining the drift-then-reset artifact model, so the agent knows the visual behavior. It omits operational context: that overwriting existing media requires the separate overwrite flag, that encoding happens (re-encode implied), and any cost/duration expectations.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, one clarifying sentence on the mechanics, then compact Args/Returns blocks. Defaults are restated from the schema but that repetition is cheap and aids scanning.

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 output schema plus the Returns line cover the response shape, and the four core params are explained. Still missing for a media-mutation tool: the overwrite-safety rule, accepted input formats/containers, and whether output_path may be omitted and defaulted.

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 only 20% (only overwrite is documented), but the description compensates well by explaining input_path, output_path, drift as max displacement in pixels, and iframe_interval as the reset cadence, including defaults. Only overwrite is left undocumented in prose, though the schema covers it.

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?

"Apply datamoshing glitch effect" is a specific verb+resource, and the follow-up sentence explains the P-frame displacement mechanic, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like transition_glitch or glitch_macroblocking. It never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops short of a true 5.

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 says what the effect does but gives no guidance on when to pick it over the nearby glitch_* family (rgb_shift, scanline_jitter, screen_tearing, macroblocking) or what source footage suits it. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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