video_speed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool changes video speed and saves output, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens if input_path is invalid. The description is minimal beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by an Args section that efficiently explains each parameter with helpful examples. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no redundant information.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a mutation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks completeness in behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, side effects). It covers parameters well but misses broader context.

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 fully. It does so effectively: it explains all three parameters (input_path, factor, output_path), provides examples for factor (2.0 for time-lapse, 0.5 for slow-mo), and notes that output_path is optional with auto-generation. 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's purpose: 'Change video playback speed.' It specifies the verb ('Change') and resource ('video playback speed'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like video_trim or video_convert, which might also affect playback characteristics.

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 video editing tools available (e.g., video_trim, video_convert), there's no indication of when speed adjustment is appropriate versus other modifications. The Args section explains parameters but doesn't offer usage context.

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