remix_video

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 does disclose that the tool preserves the original structure while applying changes, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects (whether the original is modified or a new video is created), asynchronous behavior, or required permissions. Some key behavioral aspects are left assumed.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds a practical usage tip. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers what the tool does and provides guidance on effective use. It could benefit from indicating whether the operation is asynchronous or returns a new video ID, but given the sibling tools (e.g., wait_for_video), this is implied. Overall, sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. The schema already includes guidance like 'Make single, focused changes for best results,' which the description does not repeat or enhance. Therefore, baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states it creates a variation of an existing completed video with targeted adjustments, using a specific verb ('create a variation') and resource ('existing completed video'). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_video and create_video_with_image by focusing on modifying existing videos rather than creating new ones.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: for existing completed videos and best for single, well-defined modifications. Implies not for new creations or complex changes but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. However, the context given is sufficient for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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