video_crop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a crop operation but does not mention side effects (e.g., file system changes), permissions needed, performance characteristics, or error handling. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are organized in a list format, making it easy to scan. Minor improvements could include removing redundancy in parameter titles.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description adequately covers the basic operation and parameters. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or output format, though the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values. It's minimally viable but has 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for all 6 parameters, including defaults for x, y, and output_path, and clarifies that width and height are in pixels. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail constraints like valid ranges.

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 ('Crop a video to a rectangular region') and distinguishes it from siblings like video_resize or video_trim by specifying the rectangular cropping operation. It uses a precise verb ('crop') with the resource ('video').

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 like video_resize or video_trim. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only basic parameter documentation without comparative advice.

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