remux_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions base64 encoding and output to MP4, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original video is modified), permissions required, error handling, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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 brief and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear 'Args' section listing each parameter. Every line is informative and there is no redundancy.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits error conditions, format constraints, and any caveats about the input video. It is adequate but not exhaustive, especially without annotations to fill 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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: video_id's source, audio_path's format and encoding, and output_path's purpose. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare parameter names 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 action ('Mux a WAV file onto a previously registered video') with a specific verb and resource. It implies the combination of audio and video, distinguishing it from sibling tools like register_video or transcribe_audio, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 context on prerequisites by noting that video_id comes from register_video or transcribe_audio, which hints at when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other audio/video tools like synthesize_audio.

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