convert_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that every conversion is recorded in moviola.db, that the result carries before/after bytes and a ratio, and the hard constraint that height and dpi are mutually exclusive ('never both'). It omits overwrite semantics, failure modes, and the meaning of timeout_seconds/verbose.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and the height/dpi rule is stated crisply, but the preset parenthetical is a dense, jargon-laden run ('Canine Logic Moviola Tessersect 90 fps 120p-cell 4x4 collage') that is hard for an agent to map onto concrete behavior. Content earns its place, but the phrasing costs clarity.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (before/after bytes, ratio) and the db side effect, which is the most important missing structure. Remaining gaps are secondary knobs and error behavior rather than core call correctness.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate; it covers the key knobs (preset, output extension, height vs. dpi with the pixels = dpi * inches formula, reference width) but leaves crf, fps, db_path, verbose, ffmpeg_dir, and timeout_seconds completely undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation earns a middle score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Convert any video/image file to the output path's format') and the mechanism (output extension selects container), which distinguishes it from siblings like probe_media or slideshow_from_images. It never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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 when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (probe_media for inspection, list_presets for preset discovery), and no prerequisites such as needing ffmpeg or how db_path interacts with the default moviola.db. The agent must infer routing from the purpose sentence alone.

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