video_mograph_count

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states it generates a video and returns a success dict, omitting details on side effects (e.g., file overwriting), permissions needed, or limitations (e.g., number range constraints). This is insufficient for safe autonomous invocation.

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 concise, starting with a clear one-line summary followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., start > end) and doesn't explain the return dict beyond success and output_path. For a specialized tool with few parameters, it's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The description provides explanations for each parameter beyond the schema field names, such as 'start: Starting number' and 'style: Optional style dict with font, size, color, glow.' This adds significant semantic value given the 0% schema coverage. However, the style dict could be more detailed.

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 clearly states 'Generate animated number counter video' and 'Creates a standalone video of an animated counting number,' which precisely defines the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'video_mograph_progress' by specifying the animated counting number focus.

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 usage for creating number counter animations but lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like 'video_mograph_progress.' No comparison or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name alone.

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