Convert video format

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, and the schema's overwrite parameter documents the media-protection rule. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — long renders stream MCP progress — but says nothing about the destruction/overwrite risk itself, so it is modest value on top of structured data.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the routing rule and parameter notes. The 'Returns JSON {success, output_path}' sentence is wasted space because an output schema already exists, but overall there is little filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, the key alternative, the required parameter, and progress streaming. Gaps remain around quality/two_pass/bitrate selection and overwrite behavior, though annotations and schema partially backfill the latter.

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 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates input_path and format, which the schema already documents, and is silent on quality, two_pass, target_bitrate, and overwrite — the parameters most likely to be misused for a transcode.

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 (transcode) and resource (video into a different container or codec) with example formats. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling video_export, so an agent can choose between them without reading either schema.

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?

"Use for format conversion; prefer video_export for delivery presets" gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not address adjacent siblings such as video_resize, video_hls_segment, or video_export_frames, so routing is clear only against the one named competitor.

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