video_text_animated

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether the tool modifies the input file or creates a new one, permission requirements, or error handling. Only parameter defaults are given.

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 well-structured with a concise one-line summary followed by a parameter list. It is efficient but could be slightly improved by including the missing 'typewriter_speed' parameter.

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 11 parameters and no output schema visible (though context says it exists), the description lacks explanations for the missing 'typewriter_speed' parameter, does not cover prerequisites or constraints, and provides no example usage. The output is only vaguely described as a dict with success status and output_path.

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 includes an Args section that adds meaning beyond the input schema, explaining each parameter with defaults and brief clarifications (e.g., absolute path, animation types). However, it misses the 'typewriter_speed' parameter present in the schema, slightly reducing completeness.

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 'Add animated text to video' and lists animation effects (fade, slide-up, typewriter), making the purpose specific and distinguishing it from static text tools like video_add_text.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_add_text or video_add_texts. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it.

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