video_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a key behavioral detail: 'Image overlays are applied in a single filtergraph pass (no multiple re-encodes).' However, it omits other behavioral traits like resource usage, idempotency, file overwrite behavior, or potential side effects.

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 clear first sentence, an important behavioral note, and an 'Args' section. It is concise relative to the complexity, though the example could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and the existence of an output schema (not described), the description does not explain return values. It covers the main purpose and parameter structure but misses constraints like file size limits or error handling. Overall adequate but not fully 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by providing a concrete example for the 'timeline' parameter, explaining it can be a JSON object, string, or file path, and detailing image overlay structure. It also clarifies 'output_path' is optional. This goes beyond the schema's empty descriptions.

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 'Execute a full timeline-based edit from a JSON specification,' specifying the verb (execute) and resource (full timeline-based edit). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing comprehensive editing via a single JSON specification, unlike other video tools that handle individual tasks.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a simpler tool (like video_merge or video_convert) would be preferred, nor does it list prerequisites or complementary tools.

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