video_subtitles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'burns' subtitles (implying a destructive/mutative operation that creates a new video file), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing files, what happens if output_path is omitted (how auto-generation works), format compatibility, or processing time. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The Args section is well-structured, though the auto-generation detail for output_path could be more prominent. No wasted sentences.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral details (overwrite behavior, error conditions, format specifics). The output schema helps, but more context about the mutation's effects would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 3 parameters: input_path ('Absolute path to input video'), subtitle_path ('Absolute path to subtitle file'), and output_path ('Where to save output' with auto-generation behavior). It adds crucial format information (.srt or .vtt) not in the schema.

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 ('Burn subtitles') on specific resources ('video' with 'SRT/VTT' files). It distinguishes from siblings like video_add_text (which adds text overlays) or video_edit (general editing) by specifying subtitle file integration.

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 implies usage when subtitles need to be permanently embedded in a video, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like video_add_text (for text overlays) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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