video_cutfile_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, yet it only hints at two modes: validate and compile. It does not state whether validation is read-only, whether compiling writes to disk or requires a specific path/source, or what side effects or permissions are involved.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action before the alternative. It is efficiently sized, though the cryptic '(N1/N5)' notation adds unexplained clutter without earning 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 exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 4-parameter, no-annotation tool, the description is missing critical context: what a Cutfile is, when to validate versus compile, and the roles of path and source. It is not completely empty but falls well short of complete.

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 four parameters exist. The description references only 'goal' and 'platform' as inputs for compilation, leaving 'path' and 'source' completely unexplained. It adds some semantic meaning for two parameters but fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('Cutfile'), and adds a secondary compile action from goal/platform. It is understandable in isolation, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like video_cutfile_render or video_timeline_ir_validate. The parenthetical '(N1/N5)' is unexplained jargon that weakens immediate clarity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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