video_rotate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that output_path is 'Auto-generated if omitted,' which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether the operation is destructive to the original file, what permissions are needed, potential performance/rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description is minimal beyond basic parameter documentation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter documentation is organized clearly under 'Args:' but could be slightly more concise. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations are somewhat verbose given the simple parameter names.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but for a mutation tool (video transformation), more disclosure about side effects, error conditions, or typical usage patterns would be helpful. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters: input_path ('Absolute path to the input video'), angle ('Rotation angle (0, 90, 180, 270 degrees)'), flip_horizontal ('Mirror the video horizontally'), flip_vertical ('Mirror the video vertically'), and output_path ('Where to save the output. Auto-generated if omitted'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints beyond what's listed.

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 the specific action ('Rotate and/or flip') on a specific resource ('a video'), distinguishing it from siblings like video_resize, video_crop, or video_convert. It explicitly mentions both rotation and flipping operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't mention when to choose video_rotate over other video editing tools like video_convert (which might include rotation) or video_edit (which might be more general). There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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