transform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the operations (resize, crop, pad) but doesn't disclose side effects, whether the input file is modified in place, whether output is a new file, or any constraints like even dimensions requirement. The phrase 'explicit even dimensions' hints at a constraint but doesn't explain why or what happens if violated.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main operations. It's efficient but could be slightly more structured by separating the ratio vs explicit dimensions cases. No wasted words, but it doesn't earn a 5 because it omits important usage context.

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 complex nested schema (frame object with fit, fps, crop, ratio, width, height), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent needs to know how input/output paths are specified, what the frame object controls, and what the result of the operation is. The description only covers the high-level purpose, leaving critical details to the schema.

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 for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'ratio or explicit even dimensions' which maps to the frame.ratio and frame.width/height parameters, but it doesn't explain the input/output string parameters or the frame.fit/fps/crop sub-parameters. The nested object structure is complex, and the description only partially clarifies it.

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 states a specific verb ('Resize, crop or pad') and resource ('a video') with target dimensions/ratio, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like trim, overlay, or concat. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the action is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose.

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 video geometry transformations (resize/crop/pad) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling names like probe, trim, overlay, concat suggest related tools, but the description doesn't state when to choose transform over them.

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