video_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's function but lacks critical behavioral details such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites files). The example helps but doesn't cover behavioral traits adequately for a complex tool.

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, starting with the core purpose. The example timeline is detailed but necessary for understanding. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the example more tightly, but overall it's well-structured with minimal waste.

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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well and includes an output schema (implied by context signals), so return values needn't be detailed. However, it lacks behavioral context like error handling or prerequisites, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 detailed semantics for both parameters: 'timeline' is explained with a comprehensive JSON example showing structure and usage, and 'output_path' is clarified as optional with auto-generation if omitted. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 tool executes a full timeline-based edit from a JSON specification, specifying it handles video clips, audio tracks, text overlays, transitions, and export settings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like video_merge or video_add_text by emphasizing comprehensive, single-operation editing rather than piecemeal functions.

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 for complex, multi-track video edits with JSON specifications, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like video_merge or video_add_text. It provides clear context for comprehensive edits but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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