video_punch_zoom_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a planning operation rather than a render or mutation, but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether it only outputs a plan.

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 with no filler, which is structurally efficient. However, the trailing '(TE.5)' adds little useful meaning for an agent and the extreme brevity leaves the tool underspecified.

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. Still, with no annotations, no input schema descriptions, and only a minimal sentence, the definition does not give an agent enough to select or invoke the tool confidently across its three parameters.

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%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It only hints that cut_times are the 'cut points'; zoom and duration_seconds are left completely unexplained, including their units or effect on the generated plan.

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 clear action and output: an auto-zoom punch-in plan based on cut points. It does not distinguish this planning tool from the many other video planning/effect siblings, and the '(TE.5)' tag is cryptic rather than clarifying.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'on cut points' implies input context but does not tell the agent when this planning step is appropriate.

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