video_convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool converts video formats but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether it's a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the conversion fails. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details needed for safe and effective use.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear, bulleted list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but overall, the description has clear gaps in guiding the agent effectively.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'input_path' as the absolute path to the input video, 'format' with target format options, 'quality' with preset levels, and 'output_path' with auto-generation behavior. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all potential nuances like file format constraints.

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 tool's purpose: 'Convert a video to a different format.' It specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('video'), making the function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'video_export' or 'video_edit', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., video_export, video_edit, video_resize), there's no indication of scenarios where video_convert is preferred or when other tools might be more suitable. This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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