video_stabilize

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adds good behavioral context: mentions motion vector analysis, explains smoothing (higher=more stable), zooming to avoid black borders, and auto-generation of output path. However, it lacks disclosure of potential side effects, performance implications, or error conditions.

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: a single-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list with four parameters. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers parameter behavior well but omits details like output file format, quality implications, or potential failures. It is mostly complete for basic usage.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters: input_path as absolute path, smoothing strength with default and effect, zooming percentage purpose, and output_path auto-generation. This compensates fully for the missing schema 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 'Stabilize a shaky video using motion vector analysis,' which includes a specific verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like video_trim or video_crop, which do different operations.

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 vs alternatives, such as preconditions, typical use cases, or when not to use it. It only describes parameters, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name.

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