video_trim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the output path is 'Auto-generated if omitted' which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether the operation is destructive to the original file, format compatibility, processing time, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place - the first establishes the tool's function, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the 0% schema coverage.

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 video processing tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description does well explaining parameters and basic behavior. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, it could better address mutation safety and format constraints given it's a file manipulation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters. It provides format examples for timestamps, clarifies the exclusive relationship between duration and end, and explains the optional output_path behavior. This adds significant value 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 specific action ('Trim a video clip') and specifies the mechanism ('by start time and duration'). It distinguishes from siblings like video_crop (spatial) or video_edit (general) by focusing on temporal trimming.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (trimming video clips temporally). It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the sibling list shows related tools like video_crop for spatial edits.

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