video_subtitles

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

The description indicates 'burn' which suggests permanent embedding of subtitles, but lacks details on side effects like overwriting existing subtitles, format support beyond SRT/VTT, or behavior when output_path is omitted. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden but provides only minimal behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with a single sentence followed by parameter lists. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured with a clearer separation of purpose and parameters.

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 small parameter count (3) and presence of output schema, the description covers basic usage. However, it omits details like auto-generation logic for output_path or error conditions, making it slightly incomplete for a fully self-contained tool definition.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'Absolute path to the input video') and indicating that output_path is optional with auto-generation.

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 'Burn subtitles (SRT/VTT) into a video', specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like video_generate_subtitles and video_subtitles_styled by focusing on burning existing subtitle files.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_generate_subtitles or video_subtitles_styled. The context from sibling names implies differentiation but the description does not clarify usage context.

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